Ever since the HALA report was released last year, the plan to upzone the urban villages has proceeded like a steamroller out of City Hall. We were promised lots of opportunities for public engagement, and there have been a few. The HALA public engagement problem is this: all of the public engagement meetings exist on the premise that the upzones are going to happen, and public input is just to discuss how we should upzone.
I don’t want to talk about HOW we should upzone, I want to talk about IF we should upzone.
HALA presentations to City Council always mention the extensive public outreach plan. However, many of us who have been to these public meetings leave feeling frustrated. The current HALA engagement process is predictable. There is the sales pitch: broad generalities to which HALA is alway the right answer. Upzones are equated to affordable housing as if they are the same thing (they are not). There is usually a presentation that tries to not-so-subtly guilt us into agreeing to the program. And then limited time for public discussion, often leaving participants still feeling their questions have been unanswered and frustrated.
In my opinion, the public engagement process is worthless if we are not allowed to ask the question IF we should upzone. I am going to tell you a secret that the Mayor does not want you to know: Upzoning is not the only way to achieve affordable housing.
IF we should upzone is the logical first question that should be asked. According to the City of Seattle’s own documents, our current zoning can handle expected population growth. Wallingford’s residential growth estimates predict a net increase 967 housing units during the period of 2015-2035. With our current zoning, Wallingford has a development capacity of 1,857 units. So we have room for about double the expected population growth over the next twenty years. And this trend is not unique to Wallingford. The City’s report shows that every neighborhood in Seattle has more than sufficient room with current zoning for expected population growth. To see development capacity for all of the neighborhoods follow this link.
The Mayor often says he has backed away from rezoning single family neighborhoods, but there are currently around 700 Single Family homes inside the Wallingford Residential Urban Village that would be upzoned under the Mayor’s plan. A significant percentage of these are older homes. These single family areas blend seamlessly with the areas outside the urban village boundaries and are part of an architectural treasure of Craftsman and other beautifully constructed older homes. Changing the zoning in Wallingford would likely lead to increased developer speculation and put at risk the history and the beauty of Wallingford. Similar losses of history and culture are likely in urban villages and centers around the City.
Other options to fund affordable housing do exist. Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) is the name of the program that exchanges upzones for affordable housing. But MHA is not the only option. The Community Housing Caucus, a very respectable group of affordable housing advocates, released a report last year of alternatives, but the report seems to be just collecting dust on the shelves. That report identifies alternative options to increase affordable housing without upzoning. Our current housing boom should also be providing additional government revenue. Property values in Seattle have been increasing, and with this comes an increase in property taxes. This equates to more property tax revenue for our government to collect. Also any fees associated with development are increasing. Given these potential sources for increased revenue, even if it means moving around a few things in the next budget, can’t the City find the money for affordable housing without handing over our neighborhoods to the highest bidder? Why aren’t other options being considered?
The cynic in me says it is because upzones have the backing of the developers.
Regardless of the message the Mayor’s office is telling us, the upzones are not final until the City Council votes on them. The process is beginning. MHA is the precursor to the upzones. If MHA passes, then upzoning is the next step. On August 2nd, the Planning, Land Use and Zoning committee of the City Council is expected to discuss MHA and amendments and may possibly vote on it. If it passes in committee then it is expected to quickly move to the Full Council for a vote. If you want to stop this steamroller from moving forward, the time to act is now!
Take Action!
- Make a Public Comment at the August 2nd Planning, Land Use and Zoning City Council meeting. Public comment is first on the agenda at 9:30 AM, meeting is at the City Council Chambers, Second floor, City Hall.
- Write to the City Council at [email protected]
- Read the Community Housing Caucus report & share it.
- Sign this petition: http://www.seattlefairgrowth.org/petition.html
- Make a comment to be considered with the EIS (see next section below)
MHA will be going through an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Comment deadline: 5:00 PM on September 9. Here is information from the official notice:
The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS:
The EIS will consider potential impacts associated with land use, housing and socioeconomics, aesthetics and height/bulk/scale, historic resources, open space and recreation, transportation, public services, and utilities.
Scoping.
Agencies, affected tribes, and the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The methods and deadlines for providing comments are:
1. Provide written or verbal comment at the public scoping meetings on:
Saturday, August 13, 2016 Rainier Valley Summer Parkways Event Rainier Ave. S., between 29th Ave. S. and 42nd Ave. S. 1:00PM – 3:00PM
Saturday August 27, 2016 Ballard Summer Parkways Event Ballard Ave. NW, between NW Market St. and 22nd Ave. NW 1:00PM – 3:00PM
2. Mail written comments to the Responsible Official at the address below or email comments to [email protected]. The City must receive comments by 5:00 pm on September 9, 2016 for the comments to be considered. Responsible official: Sam Assefa, Director Office of Planning & Community Development 700 5th Ave, Suite 1900 PO Box 94788 Seattle, WA 981247088
Thanks Susanna-excellent! It seems to me that a count of the actual number of total affordable units including /counting those who will be displaced is key. We do want affordable housing in Wallingford,but my instinct says there will in fact be less,and market rate housing,with huge concessions to developers will be the norm. And-sadly many residents/homeowners may not be able to age in place as taxes/home values continue to rise. Is there any mention of this in HALA and where will the affordably for seniors be?
I agree we need to count affordable units and, yes, there is a good chance that there will be more in other neighborhoods. I did not mention it in this post, but CM Lisa Herbold is sponsoring some amendments to address displacement. While I would prefer a “no” vote on MHA, if it does pass it would be much improved with her amendments and we should support her. As far as your last question, I’m not sure. I did read one instance in Seattle 2035 where (compared to the previous Comprehensive Plan) the Mayor actually removed language for seniors to age in place. I’m not sure overall how his plan addresses affordability for seniors. It definitely seems like many of these policies are more beneficial to younger adults with no children.
Excellent summary and recap of the Mayor’s and Hala’s thoughtless steamroller agenda, Susanna. You’ve done a great job keeping us informed.
As someone who’s lived in Seattle for a lifetime, I can remember at least 6 or 7 recessions, some of which were unique to the Seattle economy. Suddenly the overbuilding of cheap looking houses and apartment stops and neighbors are left with their unsightliness and uselessness, when vacancy rates become high.
It seems as if the Mayor expects Seattle growth to never stop. And of course, it will. Is it really worth ruining the aesthetics and environment of our neighborhoods to build housing that will be torn down within 20 or 30 years or less? Is efficiency all that matters?
It seems that Seattle policy makers never heard of actual community and business cycles, and HALA has really nothing to say about livability. As the Seattle Times columnist pointed out a couple days ago, the train has already left the station. The developers of all these junky apartment buildings, especially in the U district, will never have to participate in the Grand Bargain, because the area is already massively overbuilt. And they won’t lower rents when they have to pay off their bank loans quickly. Bankruptcy will be easier.
Welcome to the real world HALA and Chairman Murray.
I’d love to see the crystal ball you’re using, to know that new housing will be torn down in 20 years to less. As necessary as new housing is now, it’s even more useful after the crash, as rents will plummet and the city will become accessible and affordable to waves of lower-income people. Think Berlin after the wall fell. (Our climate is too pleasant, and our density too high, for comparisons to Detroit.) Seattle is going to be on the front guard of climate refugee cities, and we should step up to the challenge in welcoming people to live here from all over the world, especially lower-income folks. It’s a great city, let’s share it.
Not being able to age in place because of ever increasing property taxes is part of the city’s plan, Wenonah. Just ask Rob “encourage more turnover” Johnson.
Anyway, I would add tha t the question should not be IF we upzone instead of HOW we upzone, but WHY upzone.
Because if you really listen to the arguments put forth by the city and the boosters, it’s really not about density and affordability. It’s about “equity.” Not the kind of equity where your house grows in value, but the kind of equity as in “it’s not fair that some people can afford to live in expensive neighborhoods while others can’t.” The urbanists aren’t interested in adding density and affordability to less desirable neighborhoods within the city limits. They want to foist it on the more expensive more desirable neighborhoods, whether they want it or not.
I had the opportunity to read the Laurelhurst Community newsletter AND Danny Westneat’s http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/city-having-blown-its-chance-for-affordable-units-in-apartment-boom-is-now-deflecting-blame/ this week (at the same work lunch). Wallingford has more active/already built development than Ballard (and most of it is on the cross town arterials, let’s be honest with ourselves) and we aren’t a light rail station location.
There is going to be upbuilding and infilling and we need to accept that and deal with realities as they exist. We are a crossroads, not a cul de sac. See that freeway? That other freeway? That highway?
I wish it weren’t so. I love my neighborhood, but I look at a map and geography will win. That and we pay for stuff with property tax and development fees. So the developers are more important than the single family folks: we aren’t generating enough money for the city.
Maybe change our fee structure? Communist! Even so, location location location. Let the Denny Regrade be a lesson to you all.
SJ KURTZ, Then how come you don’t see the junk buildings in the expensive property neighborhoods? No, they build first in the formerly low-cost neighborhoods like Ballard, University District, Wallingford, and even Eastlake, gentrifying them to the point of unaffordabilty. Why are there no urban villages in Montlake, Mt. Baker, Laurelhurst, Madison Park (not Valley)? The traffic congestion and uglification should be shared by all neighborhoods. But developers can save a lot of money, the cheaper the land is. Then, of course, you also have the greater political power of the richer neighborhoods. This is not equitable.
?? What would the Denny Regrade lesson be, in your view? What sort of fee structure changes? Dealing with realities as they exist? Development mostly on cross town arterials? here of late a lot has been in Commercial or Industrial Commercial blocks in SW Wallingford. Does that make a difference? We have more development than Ballard???
We do have more housing units, according to Westneat’s figures (like he’s some gold standard? Uh huh). Shocked me. Probably including all the Stone Way development (and there’s a LOT).
Geography prevents Magnolia from sharing our traffic woes. Laurelhurst and Windemere are cul de sacs. For the same reason, Madison Park and Mount Baker aren’t going to get megabuildings any time soon. Wallingford is the north end crossroads and that’s what causes the issues we are dealing with.
See that freeway? You can hear it, certainly. 35th, 40th, 45th, 50th, 65th are the crosstown routes for a lot of people. They can’t stay single family zoning forever (most of them aren’t now).
Fees? Developers pay them, city takes them. City makes money building, not maintaining, its infrastructure, so they see more development as a means to an end. If you don’t like this, you should change the tax structure. Did I say income tax? I guess I just did.
Denny Regrade: A little city history. The Denny Hill was in the way of the city center expanding. Some people tried to hold out. You can see photos of their minihilltop houses on the MOHAI website. The building of interstate 5 is another example of geographic forces and economic inevitability; the freeway took the cheapest route, both in terms of property value and the shortest physical path.
What I believe we need to do is make sure that the development is appropriate and serves a variety of neighbors. Takes into account fire safety and ADA issues. Contributes to a neighborhood’s livability. Pays attention to daylight/sunlight/canyoning issues. And don’t get me started on the endless empty retail spaces and parking deregulation.
City could spend more money on code enforcement, and beefing up the staffing in those offices instead of maintaining their little interoffice turf wars. If we let the developers continue to be in charge of the terms, we are going to continue to be screwed.
But there will be development.
I-5 was necessary. Turning Wallingford into downtown Ballard or Capitol Hill is not.
I-5 was a mistake, as is failing to upzone Wallingford & the rest of affluent North Seattle.
And how would you propose we all get around without a major interstate highway? Let me guesswe, all just bike and bus everywhere?
And the current zoning in Wallingford is largely what makes it such a nice and desirable place for everyone to live. Not so much if we let them urbanistas have their way.
Vancouver BC gets along just fine without a major interstate highway running through it. So does most every major European city. I-5 through central Seattle was a 1950’s mistake.
And if urbanistas had their way, we’d be living in Paris/Berlin/Barcelona-style walkable, active neighborhoods with tons of culture and people of all ages thriving.
People in cities get around in subways, such as you see in just about every major city, and such as Seattle is currently in the process of building (late, but finally). No need to resort to sci-fi fantasy scenarios- we have plenty of excellent working examples of dense, thriving, livable cities around the world we can look at for inspiration.
Do you read the news – have you read about the migrant/race/religious issues in Europe? Do you know anything about the poverty and unemployment issues in Great Britain. Your Paris/Berlin/Barcelona-style virtual reality doesn’t exist.
Well … there are a lot of great places in the world, and many of them are very dense urban settlements. But as you notice, it would be a hideous mistake to think that this means dense urban settlement is ideal. It seems to me that an essential ingredient is time, that slow evolution over many generations is a big part of what makes the really great places.
I didn’t cite Great Britain, but thanks anyways, and I never said any of these places was utopia free of problems. Especially in recent years they’ve been suffering from myopic preservationism that makes the inner cities extremely wealthy and the poor are forced to live in far-flung suburbs. Sort of like… oh, I don’t know, Seattle and other US cities?
Second, have YOU read the news? Seattle is one of the 10 worst cities in the country for the homeless. Doing nothing – such as digging in heels and kicking and screaming against upzones, even though the harm to homeowners in Wallingford is completely frivolous – is clearly making things worse. We need to build more, now. If developer profits make you feel icky, then through public financing, but it’s clear we need bigger, taller structures all over the city.
Has someone been telling you that upzones will help the homeless? I didn’t think anyone made that claim. Maybe it’s the “trickle down” theory taken to an even more preposterous level than usual? (Born too late to get in on the moderate house prices, you young people also missed out on Ronald Reagan – too bad, I guess you would have loved him.)
I’d love to hear your theories on how we can house more people without building more units. I’m sure they’re magical.
We are building more units, and are housing more people. The homeless are never those people, though, and they won’t ever be. If they’re waiting for housing to “trickle down”, they will live out their lives homeless.
Actually I have read the news, and the financial columns, and quite a bit of other information. The mayor’s GB may produce about 6,000 units of “affordable” housing out of the 20,000 he likes to refer to. The other 14,000 units will be produced by other means, none of which include up zones. Apparently his GB isn’t very effective. And it won’t produce cheap housing in the neighborhoods where the rents are $2000 for a one bed room.
Myopic preservationists not so much, more like myopic urbanist. There was a long and very interesting article in the Guardian last winter about what’s going on with affordable housing in London. Big deal developers agreeing to build low income housing in return for zoning concessions – then they demolish the existing low income housing, build their high rises for the rich, and somehow weasel out of building the replacement/additional low income housing. Preservation has nothing to do with it.
Bring on the bulldozers! To hell with old buildings! Bring on the high rises – the Projects live again!
The “grand bargain” could be much more effective, but it turns out people who would like to freeze the city in amber and never allow another building to be built put up quite the fight. If you ask a hardcore developer-driven urbanist like Richard Valdez, they don’t think MHA will be effective either – and the best solution is to just build, build, build as much as possible. It’s a shame, really. What with homelessness, police violence, subpar public transit, inequality, and many other issues, THIS is the one that takes up all the oxygen in the public sphere. It would be great if half the people who threaten to sue the city over HALA, or pack out community meetings when a new apartment building is going up down the street, could show up demanding police demilitarization, advocating for refugees and immigrants, and justice for the homeless. Where would we be as a city, if our priorities were on helping the most vulnerable?
“justice for the homeless. Where would we be as a city, if our priorities were on helping the most vulnerable?”
I’ll tell you who is vulnerable, davigoli: I know neighbors all up and down my street and neighboring streets who have had bikes stolen, cars broken into, homes broken into, and packages stolen by those ‘most vulnerable,” so called “homeless.”
But that’s OK , because the junkies and tweekers are just “down on their luck,” and have undoubtedly been victimized by us exclusionary, privileged racist single family homeowners one way or another.
Now what? You believe that somehow an anti-development constituency is to blame for the feebleness of the “grand bargain”? Are you making this up on your own? I know Roger Valdez doesn’t think much of the deal, but as far as I know he doesn’t blame it on anyone but the turkeys who wrote it.
“Especially in recent years they’ve been suffering from myopic preservationism that makes the inner cities extremely wealthy and the poor are forced to live in far-flung suburbs. Sort of like… oh, I don’t know, Seattle and other US cities?”
And yet, just a few hours earlier, you wrote, “And if urbanistas had their way, we’d be living in Paris/Berlin/Barcelona-style walkable, active neighborhoods with tons of culture and people of all ages thriving.”
So which is it, davigoli? Is Europe a shinning city on a hill for your urbanist utopia? Or has the density that you and the rest of the DIMBY’s here in Seattle agitate for made it’s inner cities “extremely wealthy” and exclusionary to the poor?
In the last 20-30 years, most European capitals, except for perhaps Berlin, have been in the grip of right-wing austerity and preservationism meaning that not much tends to get built even though populations are increasing. Europe had it pretty good in the 60s and 70s and 80s, but is now backsliding.
More nonsense, they have not been “in the grip of right-wing austerity.” If they had, you would not be seeing a mass immigration of muslims.
Good grief, what utter nonsense. Seattle is shaped like an hourglass. There is nowhere to divert a major north-south running highway. We are also a major port city. And unless you’d like it not to be a port city, and lose a lot of well paying blue-collar jobs, you need to have an easily accessible highway. How in the he11 do you expect people to commute and transport goods in Seattle without a highway? Are they going to go around the eastside of Lake Washington instead? Or build a floating bridge not just across the short side of lake Washington, but down the length of it?
As for Europe, I’ve traveled enough of it to be able to tell you that, guess what: once you get out of the cities, people tend to live in evil, single family homes. And, they drive evil, fossil-fuel consuming cars. You seem to believe that people will all want to live in dense neighborhoods and apartments, and that once you leave the city, it’s just fields and forests, with no buffer zone of single family homes and smaller towns inbetween.
SIDEWALKS — one more thing. Probably most homeowners in Seattle don’t know that they are responsible for keeping the sidewalk in front of their homes in good repair. Since HALA is promoting walking, it seems to me that they should be inspecting sidewalks. There are many in Wallingford that will easily trip someone. Sidewalk safety is an issue that HALA never mentions.
I had a weird experience walking to the bus along N 43rd to catch it downtown along the 45th St. on-ramp. A neighbor was having a concrete retaining wall built and one of the workman threw a 5′ x 3′ heavy framing board over his shoulder, not seeing me on the sidewalk. It just missed my head, landing on my shoulder and knocking me off my feet into the parking strip. Ironically, I was on my way to get a street permit to build 10′ of new $4,000 sidewalk in front of my house. Getting a contractor to do a small job is very difficult now and very expensive.
I don’t think it’s safe to expect older people or people pushing strollers to use some of our sidewalks. I have heard nothing about safety issues for walkers or bike riders in the HALA agenda. My getting it by a framing board was a freak accident, but so are most accidents for bikers and walkers, I presume. Again, it seems that the city puts efficiency and their unrealistic theoretical plans before actual experience.
Hi,
Who should get my vote for the District 43 Position 1 race with regards to fighting for neighborhood preservation?
We should do both – upzone AND an income tax! Both are good to fight against inequality.
Maybe if you’re so concerned about inequality you and the rest of the hipster density advocates can go live down in the hood. You know, to make it more “equitable.”
Hi,
Who should get my vote for the District 43 Position 1 race with regards for fighting for neighborhood preservation?
None of them. Maybe there are some things that can be done from Olympia, but not much. If you care about your neighborhood, you need to push Seattle City Council – legislation is in their hands right now that will open up neighborhoods like Wallingford to far more development than it’s already getting, and more is coming later this summer.
We’ve tried voting for progressive sounding candidates and hoping they’ll do right for us on their own. It doesn’t work. Next time, I’d suggest voting for whoever seems to have the least money. That might be a good idea for 43rd position 1, too.
I suppose the cynicism is justified. However I still would like to select a good candidate. Nicole Macro is endorsed by the Stranger, but I fear her push for affordable housing may not be in the best interests of neighborhoods.
OK, there’s another clue – vote for someone with less money, and with no The Stranger endorsement, as they’re reliable supporters of the real estate development crowd. Also with no Kaushik Sandeep/”Sound View Strategies” support, strike 3 for Macri.
Fundamentally they’re all singing pretty much the same tune. They know what we want. Vote for someone who you think might have an outside chance of being able to work productively with eastern Washington wheat ranchers etc., and who you think honestly has no other agenda than simply to do what we want and keep getting elected. We have been too accepting of representatives who know better than us, and it opens a door for representatives who serve other interests while posing as progressives.
Olympia isn’t entirely irrelevant – Frank Chopp, the other 43rd guy, has plenty going on with affordable housing initiatives that are more about results and less about developer give-aways. When Scott Forbes showed up at my door, he was at least acquainted with this stuff and generally with Chopp on things like making use of state owned properties etc. I got the impression he was a little more incentive-happy than Chopp, but Chopp may be able to straighten him out. If I make out my ballot today as I suppose I will, I guess that’s my choice.
That is a good question. From my research I haven’t found one candidate that stands out on the position of neighborhood preservation / affordable housing without developer giveaways. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I will probably either vote for Scott Forbes or Sameer Ranade. Scott came to a WallHALA meeting and seemed to have similar concerns, but his responses to an Urbanist interview were less encouraging. Sameer doesn’t say much about housing but he is a strong environmentalist candidate and seems to have less ties to developers from what I could gather. But as Donn said, the City Council is currently the most important when it comes to these issues.
I used to go by the Stranger voting guide, but their politics on housing issues have been completely opposite of mine lately, so I will no longer be going by their suggestions.
I sent the following message to all of the 43rd District Position 1 candidates:
I’m having difficulty determining who to vote for in the 43rd Representative Position No. 1 race.
I am interested in affordable housing. In particular, I am watching my property taxes skyrocket while my income stagnates. As I age, I don’t know whether or not I’ll be able to stay in my home. Something that I think should be brought to the election process is informing renters as to how property tax increases for landlords will translate into rent increases for tenants. Seattle’s property owners are not a bottomless piggybank. A shining city is being built on a hill that nobody can afford to live in. This is not only true for low, but also middle income individuals.
I am interested in preserving the character of neighborhoods. I am also interested in the quality of life in Seattle, the presence of greenery, cohesive and safe neighborhoods, reducing the impacts of noise and crowding to the maximum degree practicable.
I live in the Wallingford neighborhood. From what I’ve read, Wallingford will be constructing sufficient residence units to meet housing demand for the next 20 years. I’ve looked on in horror as cookie cutter block apartment/condo buildings and townhouses have destroyed the character of Fremont, Ballard, and Capitol Hill. I’m not seeing that any of the new units are particularly “affordable.” I am concerned about what’s coming to Wallingford. I believe density should increase to the degree needed, as overly dense housing creates noise and crowding stresses, loss of green space, and damages neighborhood cohesiveness. Lower density multifamily housing focusing on ADAs preserves neighborhood character, allow residents to afford to stay in their homes, and may provide the density Seattle needs.
• If we have sufficient residential units to meet demand in Wallingford, why is there a need for more up-zoning and destruction of classic and well-designed residential homes?
• What is your opinion on ADAs and lower density multifamily housing that preserves the architectural character of neighborhoods?
I believe autos are still needed to get around in Seattle. Though I frequently use mass transit, I am unwilling to give up my car. Parking is getting much worse as developers put up buildings without adequate parking.
• Why are developers being allowed to put up housing that doesn’t have adequate parking?
Thank you for assisting me as to how I cast my vote!
A few points:
1. You’re in favor of MHA, yet against HALA. MHA is part of HALA, and would be much less effective if HALA as a whole is not enacted. Seattle is just about out of buildable land, so the only way to have developers build their own projects, and then also build/cough up money for affordable projects, is to have upzones.
2. The CHC recommendations include some good suggestions (Growth Related Housing fund, suspending permits that would destroy low-income housing, surplus public land sales), some bad suggestions (issue half-a-billion in bonds without pointing to a revenue source, conflating “family housing” zones with affordable housing), and some unworkable suggestions (millionaire’s tax would probably require state approval, rent control definitely would). As for rent control, depending on how it’s implemented, it could very well make the situation worse as it could dampen the construction of new apartments (might be expensive now, but will come down in price as they age).
3. The Seattle Times published an article today explaining why we’re not San Francisco in terms of housing:
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/will-seattle-really-become-the-next-san-francisco/
The big reason why? It’s because we’ve built twice as many housing units as San Francisco, yet have a population that’s about 20% smaller. Housing is not special; it responds to supply&demand economics, so we really can build our way out of this crisis. San Francisco’s problem is its neighborhoods have basically put a stranglehold on new construction. Property owners have already got theirs, so why should they let anyone else in?
I am not in favor on MHA. There are plenty of parts of HALA I do support (i.e. tenant protections). MHA, as written, does not guarantee that we gain more affordable housing than we are losing. Councilmember Herbold’s amendments would address displacement and be an improvement to the program.
But I do not support the upzones because, at least according to the City’s own numbers, we have three times the available development capacity that we will need for projected population growth. And I don’t believe in sacrificing certain neighborhoods, especially when I feel it is a developer driven idea. Why not , for example, instead of building the most expensive police precinct in the country we build a normal precinct and put that extra money into Section 8 Vouchers?
The building is happening now. Over the last few years we’re building 3-4x more housing than we used to and rent prices only continue to rise. I understand the supply / demand argument, but so far it does not seem to be working. Seattle is not a closed city, we could build more and more people could just decide to move here.
Apologies, I misread your post as in favor of MHA, but re-reading it I see that I was wrong.
As for rents rising as new supply is built, there’s a couple things going on:
1. There’s a huge number of apartments that are still under construction but not yet leasing.
2. New apartments (almost) always lease for more than older apartments. This premium declines as they age but Seattle has had so many new apartments, plus wealthy people willing to pay the premium, that rents have not declined. If developers had started building sooner (i.e. had bank lending not been frozen for several years), then this would not be as pronounced.
How does it work if you limit displacement, then turn around and say new residents are going to live in projects where we have available development capacity, ie tearing down smaller, old buildings and building new ones that max out today’s available capacity? You can’t have it both ways.
Let’s take a step back and ask why we would compare Seattle to San Francisco in the first place, why we’re alike in any way? The similarity is this: lots of stuff is moving here, as it has to San Francisco. This isn’t a natural increase because Seattle residents are so fecund, it’s a an extremely mobile economy where major players rush to the spot where it might be happening at the moment. That’s the only thing we have in common with San Francisco, and it’s the primary thing that determines housing prices. The other, secondary, thing that affects prices is speculation, as real estate speculation has become very lucrative relative to other investment options. The belief that more construction will bail us out of this is in the same league with belief in fairies. From the same Seattle Times article –
The housing boom won’t help, until we stop trying to be like San Francisco and start taking some responsibility for managing growth. Cancelling the colossal University District upzone would be a good start.
How, pray tell, will canceling an upzone in a neighborhood that doesn’t even have much single-family housing save anything at all for Wallingford? Remember, the more density non-SFH neighborhoods take, the less Wallingford has to take.
There are housing affordability issues with the upzone, but my point has nothing to do with that. The University District upzone, combined with UW building it will unleash, will create an office building zone like South Lake Union, to which if they’re successful they will draw many thousands more people to the region. Only a few of them will be able to afford to live here, the rest will commute from Snohomish county etc., but the pressure on housing will be the same “like San Francisco” story.
Population trends don’t just come our way like some force of nature that’s outside our control, we’re throwing everything we have into making them worse. We’re throwing our irreplaceable assets as a city into the fire, throwing the people’s housing money into the fire, just to warm the hands of real estate speculators.
Building don’t create jobs.
If they did, Gary Indiana would have simply built lots of tall buildings and become prosperous instead of distressed
They accommodate jobs that are already being created.
You think the SLU-scale office empire will be an empty ghost town? Yet another reason it shouldn’t happen.
Donn, I’m assuming that, based on your posts, that you have a magic wand to tell the people and employers that are already here in Seattle looking for housing (or office space) to go away?
Though, after spending billions of dollars on a light rail system to service the U-District, why would we ever want them to leave?
We start with the ones who haven’t already pulled up stakes and hit the road to Seattle. They will stay where they are, or find somewhere else that’s the latest hot destination. If we can do that much, I’m optimistic about the future. Not building a second SLU is part of it – and it isn’t something I have ever noticed we see an obvious need to do everywhere there’s a light rail station.
No, Skylar. You tell them if they want relatively affordable housing in the city and close to transit other services you can start by looking on Aurora or the Interbay or Beacon Hill or Georgetown or South Park or any of the other neighborhoods I have suggested over and over again to you urbanistas. And yet density and affordability in those areas is just not good enough for you, because they’re not as desirable. THAT is the crux of this whole stupid, endless debate.
Some of them will end up in those neighborhoods. But why shouldn’t some of them end up in Wallingford?
Indeed, since Wallingford has added thousands of units where they could live, in the last couple years, it seems likely they will. Depending on who we’re talking about.
Skylar, some of them will end up in Wallingford. They just need to be willing and able to pay for it. is that a selfish concept?
In other words, I’m challenging the notion that’s always put forth by the urbanists that, regardless of their ability to pay, everyone has the right, the need, and the entitlement to live in an expensive neighborhood. They don’t.
There is no NEED for it, as there are many less expensive and less desirable neighborhoods in the city for them to live.
Nor is there is a constitutional RIGHT for people to expect to able to live wherever they please and not have to pay what others have paid to live there. No one, whether rich or poor “deserves” to able to live in whatever neighborhood they want, and they especially don’t deserve to expect others to pay for it or make sacrifices for them in one form or another. That they might WANT to live here is different from they deserve to live here. Just like I might want to live in a beachfront community on Maui. Reality says otherwise. Is it “unfair” that I can’t? No.
Hmmm, I’m confused by your argument.
Yes, it is a selfish concept; yet at the same time it is self-sabotaging. If no one has the right to live where they please if they can’t afford it, then no one has the right to “age in place,” as you argued earlier, either, if they can’t afford it.
Your argument seems to be based on keeping Wallingford expensive (which is hasn’t always been), or making it more and more expensive. Also, it seems to be based on an idea that Wallingford is so desirable that people have to somehow “deserve” to live here. I don’t understand that point of view. It is a neighborhood, like many other neighborhoods, with houses and stores and streets and schools. I didn’t pay a lot of money to move here (in fact, I bought my house on a blue-collar salary), and I don’t think the insane property value increases make me somehow more entitled to live here than other blue-collar people who just want a place to live.
I don’t have any problem with sharing the load with other Seattle neighborhoods.
I also don’t live under any delusion that every house in Wallingford is some Craftsman gem; there are buildings from every decade here, and that will continue into the future.
I also agree with Susanna Lin on many of her points about HALA’s limitations and the lack of public process, and I have deep aversion to our government handing over our neighborhood to the development industry.
As I’ve said before, there is nothing straight-forward about this paradoxical challenge.
Runyararo, why is it selfish to say that if you want to live in an expensive neighborhood you should pay for that? If people can’t afford to live in an expensive neighborhood, they shouldn’t ask others to help them cover the difference. Before the urbanist movement came around, no one would have dreamed of asking others to help them live in expensive neighborhoods. They would have simply moved to less expensive neighborhoods.
And part of the reason why people are having a harder and harder time affording aging in place is in part because of the increased property taxes they are being forced to pay to help others live here as well.
Like I said, you are basing your argument on Wallingford being an expensive neighborhood. I don’t think of it that way. It has become expensive, sure, but the main attributes I think of when I think of Wallingford are: working-class bungalows; really good access to transportation; close to employment centers like UW and downtown (and now SLU); great walkability, lots of trees.
It IS about just wanting a place to live, close to one’s place of employment. IMO, that is a good thing for everyone (less traffic, less pollution, etc).
I know you are not going to like this word, but focusing on keeping Wallingford “expensive” sounds elitist.
Regarding property taxes: 1. the property taxes are high because the assessed values are high. this is the real issue. your argument to keep Wallingford expensive is keeping your taxes high. self-sabotage. 2. we aren’t forced to pay them, we vote. those of us who are more community-minded than you believe we are all in this together. i guess we out-number you.
Before the urbanist movement came around, lots of people asked for exclusionary zoning to be changed.
“If you people can’t afford to live in our town, then you’ll just have to leave.” With these words, Bill Haines, the Mayor of Mount Laurel, New Jersey, in 1970, rejected a proposal by the town’s African-American community to build an apartment complex. Haines claimed that the town’s zoning for large-lot, single-family homes could not yield to allow apartments. (Source: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=ylpr)
It’s Monday. Time to play the race card again.
A lot of the reason many can’t afford housing here is because their employers pay them exploitive wages. American businesses and corporations have had few qualms about paying wages that practically no one could live on anywhere in the country over the last 30 years or so. Why aren’t they held accountable?
Corporations used to value their workers above their share holders. Now it’s all about stock prices and trying to control their costs primarily through low wages. Financial and investment capitalism has no regard for place or people. They will make loans to developers wherever they can get the greatest return.
And don’t think that building more housing is going to lower prices. Developers have to pay back their loans as quickly as possible to control their holding costs. They are not going to lower rents when their banks won’t offer them better terms. Remember, that didn’t happen during the financial crisis. Why do you think there were so many foreclosures and bankruptcies? The little guy always ends up holding the bag. Just ask Donald Trump.
Hayduke, there indeed is no constitutional right to live in a particular neighborhood. Nor, for that matter, is there a constitutional right to freeze a neighborhood in time just because you happen to own a bit of property in it.
Amen, hayduke. I couldn’t have put it better. It seems to me that Tacoma would be a far better choice for newcomers than Seattle especially for start-ups or tech companies. Housing and land there is about half Seattle’s costs in general. When you move into an established high cost neighborhood in Seattle you are paying for the amenities that have been paid for for decades by Seattle voters and consumers. Why not create similar attractions and amenities in Tacoma or somewhere in Pierce County? There are beautiful views there too and tech and other companies for employment. And you may get in at a real estate low point that will not long follow Seattle’s trajectories.
Another similarity we have with San Francisco is geography – cramped, hilly terrain surrounded by water. It is relevant – just look to Austin, TX – also sharing the similarity you mentioned – for a comparison. They are sprawling in all directions, building new freeways where they’re needed, and still within city limits.
“lots of stuff is moving here” – this is extremely telling wording, that someone who opposes new development can’t even say “lots of people are moving here” – it’s just inanimate “stuff” with no humanity. Seattle has plenty of room and should grow, whether or not developers will profit, because more people have the right to live in this great city.
By “stuff” I meant corporations. People don’t just move here because Seattle. Seattle has plenty of room and is growing, but if there is such a thing as sustainable growth, this isn’t it. Unlike the corporations’ story, the story from humanity seems to be more bitter and anxious. The more bitter and anxious, the more preyed upon by real estate speculators etc., the more people seem to be putting their hopes on the city’s developer give-aways to solve their problems. When will they figure it out?
Would you be opposed to this level of development if it was paid for by the state, and nobody was making a profit from it?
Because there is a massive homeless crisis in this city, and 27 new people arrive here EVERY DAY, and we aren’t building enough new homes for the people who want to live here. It’s a simple arithmetic problem really. Should we freeze development and build a wall around the city to keep newcomers out? Or is there any scenario in which new development of the density required to put a roof over people’s heads would be acceptable to you?
New development is already happening at an extremely rapid pace. It isn’t solving the problem. So – some people say, that means “more” isn’t enough, we need “more than more!” Some people say we need to start thinking about why all these people are coming here, because this isn’t working.
Again, it’s simple arithmetic: even though it seems like we’re building a lot, we’re not building enough for the population growth. We’re building 13,000 units per year, but the population is growing by 16,000 per year. So, construction is falling short by 3,000 units per year, and is projected to fall even further behind:
https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/08/04/the-building-boom-is-smaller-than-the-people-boom/
Sadly, the people most affected by rising rents will not be the wealthy techies who often get blamed, but the poor and working class people who can’t afford to bid up the rent against them. So building more – no matter where – is the best thing we can do for the poor & working class in this city.
Of course, and it will continue to fall farther behind, until we take measures to slow that growth. And it isn’t just housing that isn’t keeping up, it’s practically everything – schools, police, buses, you name it. Unsustainable.
Do more research – population growth isn’t one to one with need for new housing units – I’ve seen the numbers. The correct numbers allows for the people who move here as couples, or families.
Three things:
1) has anyone determined whether the HALA meetings violated any Open Meetings laws?;
2) when did it become a crime to own a house?;
3) what happened to the “livability” component of HALA? Does it only apply to new residents and not existing, long-term residents?
I am appalled by City Hall’s disrespect for home-owners in our community. We have been demonized!
HALA does not criminalize any aspect of owning a house. On the contrary, private, single-family homeownership is massively incentivized by federal, state, and local laws and taxes. However, single-family homes are the worst type of dwelling for the environment, something we should be moving away from as a culture: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/epa-study-finds-where-you-live-matters-more-than-how-you-live.html
The supposed incentives are ineffectual in an economic situation like this, where a house might sell for $100K more than the asking price. If, say, an income tax deduction allows everyone to spend more, they’ll end up simply spending more for the same house. The real estate market benefits, including financial institutions, but home buyers don’t see a nickel of it.
Please provide an accurate breakdown of “massively incentivized by federal, state, and local laws and taxes.” And don’t trot out the mortgage interest deduction unless you also include an accurate description of the limits to using it. All I see as a homeowner is massive taxes coming out of my pocket. And could you possibly, possibly not reference a post about how awful single-family homes are for the environment that uses standard suburban (1/4 acre lots and up) development as the baseline for single family homes. Much of Seattle’s SFH areas are much denser, plus we don’t have the extreme cold winters of the east coast and most houses here don’t have air conditioning, both of which have a major impact on energy use.
” All I see as a homeowner is massive taxes coming out of my pocket.”
And double digit annual gains in equity that can be tapped by low interest tax deductible loans and will be largely or completely exempt from capital gains taxes if you sell.
Equity loans have to be paid back – that means the borrower has to have enough cash flow to make the additional payment. The interest rates are lower than most credit cards and you have a finite length of time to pay the money back or else. Maybe okay for buying a car, sometimes a convenience, but hardly what I would call a “massive incentive” for homeownership. The gains in home equity that you seem to find so appalling are the only way a lot of low income earners build any sort of assets. Certainly true in my family – Grandpa was a laborer with an eighth grade education when he came here from Sweden, and eventually put together enough savings to buy a house. If you really want to help out people on the lower end of the financial spectrum, you could focus on programs that help them put their rent money into ownership of condos or homes.
You don’t deserve that equity, margie74. You’re just a “selfish,” “privileged” single homeowner who was “lucky” enough to buy their house at the right time. And if you don’t voluntarily vote to raise your own taxes and permanently alter your neighborhood for the worse to supposedly make it easier for people who don’t even live in our state or who have been paying taxes here to move here, well, you’re just being “exclusionary” and “racist.” That equity that’s built up over the years in your home? That’s not yours to use for retirement or to bequeath to your children or for whatever other plans you may have had. That’s OURS to use and distribute as we see fit, to people who we’ve decided need it more and deserve it more than you.
There you go, Bryan. I saved you the trouble of responding to margie74. No thanks are needed.
Thanks hayduke, they do throw around a lot of BS, don’t they. I might feel guilty if I wasn’t so clear about the real world limitations of my finances. Must be about time for another round of “NIMBY” and “Anti-growth” also.
Most places, most of the time, housing prices have appreciated in the US at about the rate of inflation. That’s a win all the way around for everyone but speculators:
Middle class homeowners as you say, build equity, but it’s an amount they can still afford to pay the taxes on, and, more important, a fixed rate mortgage provides stability and gets paid off after 30 years.
At the same time, the next generation can still afford homes.
The first order failure of runaway home prices is that of policy makers in places like San Francisco or Seattle who put in place policies that let it happen (or actively facilitate it). Of course they aren’t acting in a vacuum, there are constituencies who advocate for those policies.
You are the enemy and should be purged
I appreciate everyone’s interest in this topic. I just want to encourage polite and constructive comments. Thanks.
From today’s Seattle Times (Just in case you need anymore evidence that our city leaders pushing HALA are bought and paid for by developers):
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/dont-change-housing-grand-bargain-industry-coalition-warns-city-council/#comments
These two paragraphs are especially telling:
“And as they oppose the changes that would require more from developers, they’re reminding the council they’ve been bankrolling efforts to sell the public on the mayor’s affordable-housing agenda — including the campaign for the $290 million new housing levy on Tuesday’s ballot.
In a letter last week, the prominent lawyer who helped negotiate the grand bargain on behalf of the industry players sent a message about who holds the purse strings when it comes to getting the political results Murray and the council want.”
Update on MHA-R (the framework for the upzones): It passed through the Planning, Land Use & Zoning (PLUZ) committee today and all of the amendments passed. While it is better with the amendments, I still am disappointed this legislation passed. The three PLUZ committee members were joined by CMs Burgess & Gonzales & all of the votes were unanimous. Which means that there is a majority so it will likely pass in Full Council (I believe they vote on Monday).
There is still a determination of significance regarding the Environmental Impact Study and MHA is required to go through a SEPA review. I think this technically means they are not supposed to move forward until it is completed, although that did not stop them today. It may take legal action to stop this train.
Thanks for the update, Susanna, and thanks for the article.
One opinion I have on the proposed upzoning is that I’m surprised that I haven’t heard much (or anything?) along the lines of folks wanting to improve/re-develop their own property after the zoning changes. It seems that not many people want to do much with their own property, which surprises me. As a small example, I posted on a thread in the Wallyhood forum about a “controversial” project at 5612 Kirkwood Pl. N., which sold the other day for 1.45 MM, after being listed for 1.185 MM.
What they did is build a new garage and DADU in the back yard, but the upzoning would allow someone to be a bit more ambitious than that. Is this an unpopular idea? If so, why?
What happened there was not popular, right? Through upzones and changes to standards that are coming via legislation to be enacted this year, as you say, we can expect much more of the same everywhere in the neighborhood. I like to think people will look ahead to that, and will be moved to try to stop it, but sometimes it seems like we have no motivation until they see the bulldozer from their back yard, when it’s too late to do anything about it.
OK, but there you have touched on something else that intrigues me, something surprising. It is the notion of being “moved to try to stop it.” I mean, I don’t know what your current or future zoning is, but if you wanted to tear down your SFH and build a triplex in its place in order to make a buck, I would be impressed, not disgruntled, and would applaud your ambition and risk-taking, and certainly not try to stop you from achieving such a lofty goal.
I imagine that it isn’t actually an issue for you, as someone who cares so little would be unlikely to have done what it takes to live on such a lot. But what I’m saying is that even if it can’t happen in your back yard, even if you live in an apartment on Stone Way, these single family areas are an essential part of Wallingford’s character, and we all stand to lose when those areas are over-run by the tall boxes finished in grey fiber panel and topped with roof decks. It isn’t just about “my back yard”, it’s my neighborhood, and my city for that matter.
I hear you, you must be in a SFH zone, and I too am not a fan of that boxy “modern architecture” that you refer to. With me, I actually almost *have* to do something slightly special, or at least do *something* as I am in the multifamily zone by 45th, between Stone Way and Aurora, and my lot is very “underutilized,” if you catch my drift.
New construction is indeed very much “in my back yard” as a seven-townhouse project was recently completed right next door. It was a little rough, but I would never complain about it.
So I think we might just have a zoning difference, maybe a small personality difference or cultural difference. Where I come from, it would be considered “queeny” to make an issue out of it. So I won’t.
Actually we are in roughly the same position. LR2 with a new 5 unit development hastily erected next door. But as I have been at some pains to emphasize, this is not about my back yard, where in any case the sun still shines as I’m to the south of that stuff. It’s about my neighborhood.
Thanks Donn, that sounds good.
I particularly liked a sentence I wrote earlier, saying that (at least in some cultures) it could be considered “queeny” to make this an issue. (By “queeny,” I mean “bitchy” and “gay”). But I do wonder if that is a compelling enough reason to get guys to stop opposing HALA and all that stuff. Seattle is very PC, so I don’t think it would be helpful for, say, Rob Johnson to say, “Don’t be so “queeny” about all this shit!!” Haha!
When townhouses are brought into neighborhoods I feel they often degrade the environment for single family homeowners. There’s loss of light, loss of privacy, and increased noise.
Builders wish to maximize profits, minimize cost, and push zoning and structural regulations to the verge of rupture in support of these ends. The ugly grey monstrosity that went in at 3635 Carr Place North should be viewed as a classic case study of a horribly failed implementation of zoning and building regulations, causing irretrievable damage to the aesthetics and character of a cohesive neighborhood. Someone should do a video documentary of the whole butchered process.
I also think that poorly built townhouses create greater frictions as a result of crowding and noise transmission. I lived in a townhouse in Fremont that was intolerable. I could hear my neighbors through the walls, and sloshing about in their hot tubs during weeknight parties just a stone’s throw from my bedroom window. I still remember moving into my modest bungalow in Wallingford, washing dishes at the kitchen sink, and attaining a total state of bliss when I realized I couldn’t hear anything at all. After that, finding out that all of my neighbors were considerate, interesting people who I’d chat while gardening, walking their dogs, etc. and occasionally socialize with was an added plus. Can you imagine what it’s going to be like to live in a condo or apartment in one of the monoliths on Stone Way? I imagine, you’ll walk in the front door, grab your mail, take the elevator to your unit, and lock the door.
With good design, a townhouse or multiplex might be brought in such that it would have a limited impact on the houses around it. But I haven’t met a builder yet that seems to care about the effect of a project on the residents around a project. It would be an amazing shift if there was consultation during the design process to make a new home aesthetically blend in with the neighborhood and to consider light and privacy considerations for the new and existing residents.
Hopefully, an owner putting in an ADA would have greater respect for their neighbors than a builder seeking to simply implement a project. However, I believe it’s essential to have regulations that limit what someone can do. If it’s possible for someone to build a McMansion in their city back yard, you can bet someone will-severely compromising the usability and attractiveness of their neighbor’s properties. Something the City should do is draft up guidelines to coordinate with neighbors for owners wishing to put in ADAs. Whenever I do anything that could affect my neighbors, I inform them. After coordinating replacing sewer lines for my, and 3 other properties, we’re all still on good terms.
I do believe that appropriately scaled ADAs that consider the residents around them are a great way to increase density, maintain neighborhood character, and increase income for homeowners who are finding property increases are chewing away at their stagnant incomes.
I fail to understand the vehement opposition to roof-decks on this blog. Can you explain?
Also, a lot of the modern architecture is quite aesthetically pleasing to me, is energy-efficient, and fits in with modern life better than older homes. More so than some of the 60’s and 70’s crap around here. As I said elsewhere, there are buildings from every decade in Wallingford, and that will continue in the present and future.
My biggest complaint is about these “faux-Craftsman” single family McMansions pretending they are in keeping with the neighborhood (visit the NW corner of 54th and Kensington for Exhibit A). There is nothing “craftsman” about that monstrosity. The house just north of it was a big remodel blocking the sun from the house north of it, before this new one went in several years ago.
My guess is that some people think this is okay, while multi-family townhomes of the same size and scale with a roof deck would be unacceptable. I disagree.
“I fail to understand the vehement opposition to roof-decks on this blog. Can you explain?”
+1
I’ve never asked but I’ve always wondered about this too.
(If our neighbors hung out on their roofs, they’d be -farther- away from us hanging out in our backyard rather than nearer, if something like noise or privacy is a concern.)
A neighboring roof deck decreases privacy. Ordinary shrubbery or a fence serves as a visual screen – but only if everyone’s at ground level. The occasional interaction between neighbors at ground level isn’t necessarily a bad thing, though, for all that townhome designers seem to suppose it is – not only the omnipresent roof decks, they love to trade away exterior space for internal courtyards where (only) the residents can mingle.
I personally am no fan of extravagantly large houses. If there’s some weakness in the land use code that is being exploited, it should be fixed – an important part of single family standards is that there’s plenty of open space and sunlight, and a house that fills the lot is indeed the same problem. But I am less worried that such houses are going to overrun the landscape under current code, than I am that triplexes etc. are going to do so after the changes introduced in current legislation, because I suppose the reason the city seems to be panting with eagerness to allow triplexes is that there’s a strong demand for it from their developer masters.
You certainly make some great points, sir!
I just thought of something from the WCC meeting in January at the Good Shepherd Center. I didn’t actually attend this, but I watched the video. This was a big meeting of 200 or more people, and it was about HALA and all things related….
There was something that jumped out at me, and it was a person by the name of Greg Hill (I think) who was talking about a letter going out in Ballard, from builders, asking if people wanted to sell their homes due to impending construction next door….
Anyway, the idea was that this was an objectionable thing to do…the idea was that the construction next door would be hard to tolerate, etc, and the letter asks: would you like to sell your house to the builder, because otherwise, it would, supposedly, make the residents lives a “living hell” for one year during construction, etc, etc…
I was so disheartened by these statements and this line of thinking because it struck me as VERY weak and gay. (by this, I mean, in this case, unable to tolerate change, hardship, misery and pain; an inability to suffer). I was so deeply concerned about the faggotry being espoused that, at that point, I sort of lost hope in the WCC, because I viewed them as a bit too candy-ass, way too soft, and way too anti-development…
I dunno…gay means having dealt with the AIDS crisis, discrimination…etc. I’d use different language… I think gay and transgender people exhibit an amazing degree of strength…
That’s true, sir. I only meant it in the slang sense, or colloquial sense. Absolutely not in the literal sense. No disrespect whatsover.
Troll
I’m happy to be “unable to tolerate change, hardship, misery and pain; an inability to suffer”, especially when the misery etc. are to be administered by the downtown oligarchy. Anything else would be mighty perverse, if you ask me.
The only exception is the “change” part – I value change highly, but the kind of change that we see more in old things, the gradual adjustments and refinements. The kind of change pushed by the mayor, the wholesale replacement of old long lived things with cheap new barracks for transient tech workers, that’s not so desirable.
OK, that sounds good, but…
I don’t know if you remember, but about 18 hours ago, you had some choice words on here that were quite off-base. A real swing and a miss! Do you see or know what I am talking about?
I will point you to the post in question, to jog your memory, if you would like…
I don’t know where you come from, but in the interest of cultural literacy, giving the word “gay” the variety of derogatory meanings you’ve listed does not become okay because you’ve used it in the “slang” or “colloquial” sense. That’s the slang of nasty ignorant 13 year olds.
I would also note that not everyone sees making a lot of money as a person’s highest achievement in life. People have different value systems.
And – I certainly don’t see that refusing to let Mayor Putin and his handlers walk all over my neighborhood is a sign of weakness.
Choo Choo Bulldoze every SFH density obstructionist house and replace it with Apodments until you neighborhood NIMBY’s learn your lesson.
Citing an “architectural treasure” is frequently going to lead many to discount to entire article and reinforce pejorative and even derogatory statements. This debate is at least as much about perceptions and marketing as it is about facts and rationale.