Pro-HALA folks paint San Francisco as our nightmare future if HALA doesn’t pass, where all housing near jobs costs millions of dollars. Anti-HALA folks paint Ballard as our future if HALA passes, where existing residents are driven out by a construction tsunami and we are left with luxury housing that is 95% tech bros (plus 5% reserved for a few token “poor” people that win the MHA lottery)
I sat down with some Wallingford HALA proponents, looking for win-win solutions to housing affordability in Seattle. Here are some ideas we came up with:
Collaborate with homeowners on affordable ADUs and DADUs: The city could work directly with residents on adding affordable housing to their homes. Many homeowners have space they would use to help provide housing to a lower income resident, but it is difficult for them to get over the hump of lining up the necessary permits, contractors, and financing. Seattle City Light successfully pioneered this approach when they rolled out rooftop solar by going neighborhood to neighborhood with information sessions and vetted contractors. Rooftop solar was achieved on more than one home per city block, all without any changes to existing solar incentives. Imagine if the city brought neighbors together to be part of a solution, instead of telling people they’re NIMBYs that need to leave and make way for developers.
Rezone To Multifamily If Adjacent Neighbors Agree: A key issue is allowing for greater density in single family neighborhoods without imposing blanket rezones. One mechanism would be to allow one or more adjacent single family lots to be rezoned to multifamily if the two neighbors most impacted by the rezone agree to the zoning change. For instance, two adjacent neighbors could agree to place a new home between their existing structures, either as an adjoining unit or through a lot split, all without impacting setbacks for their other neighbors. Another way would be for a developer to request permission from adjacent lots to rezone the lots they own in order to place rowhouses or townhouses there. The adjacent homeowners could agree to the rezone for a number of reasons- perhaps the zoning change will allow an existing structure to be maintained, perhaps they will be given a say in the zoning envelope for the new structure (e.g. increased setbacks), or perhaps they will simply be paid off. Regardless, the advantage is that new multifamily homes would come into a neighborhood without it coming at the expense of upsetting the people that would be most impacted by the change.
Expand MHA Upzone Areas In Exchange For Limits On The Rate Of Change: A key fear with HALA MHA upzones is that they will result in a neighborhood “flipping” like Ballard did, with all existing residents pushed out by redevelopment. Another key problem with HALA is that it is artificially limited to urban village boundaries that were defined in the 1990s, before light rail was started on, and often not making any sense in terms of access to light rail and amenities like schools. One way to address both issues would be to expand upzone amounts in appropriate locations in exchange for a cap on the rate of demolition in an upzoned area in a given year. To control the rate of change, demolition and permits would be auctioned off in the upzoned area. The proceeds from the auctions could be used to provide amenities for the upzoned neighborhoods.
Block Single Family McMansions In MHA Zones: One thing nobody but developers likes is McMansions- they’re bad for nearby residents, bad for affordable housing, and bad for the environment. Demolitions and additions that create lot maximizing single family homes create adverse impacts, meaning they can be legally controlled for in urban villages as part of MHA and possibly city-wide. Portland limits square footage to 2000 square feet for single family homes on small lots for instance. By downsizing what can be done with single family homes, it will incentivize the creation of more multi family homes and cut down the demolition of existing housing.
Adjust The RPZ Program So Parking Requirements For New Construction Can Be Eliminated: While parking requirements for new construction should be eliminated to reduce dependence on cars and lower the cost of housing, we don’t want new residents of multifamily dwellings to simply flood neighborhoods with their cars. A change could be made to eliminate parking requirements for new construction in exchange for having the RPZ program limit applications to 1 per licensed driver up to a maximum of 4 per lot. In this way, residents of new “car-free” housing that are in areas where there is not enough street parking would actually need to get by with fewer cars. Meanwhile, the requirement that new structures have parking would be eliminated, potentially lowering rents and simplifying ADU / DADU conversions.
Convert Golf Courses and Country Clubs Into Urban Villages And Parks: Broadmoor and Sand Point are private, invitation-only country clubs that cover 180 acres of prime real estate with spectacular views, yet they have a combined taxable value of only 7.8 million dollars and provide no housing at all. HALA asks absolutely nothing of these places. For comparison, the Wallingford urban village is smaller at 158 acres and has 2817 homes, meaning by acre the country clubs are paying about 1/300th of Wallingford’s tax rate. HALA also ignores our public golf courses. We are currently paying nearly a billion dollars a mile to put light rail alongside the Jackson Park and Jefferson Park golf courses (ST3 is 54 billion dollars for 62 miles of rail). To legally allow these public golf courses to be developed as new urban villages would require a land swap which maintains the public space, a land swap that could be achieved by opening up our city’s private country clubs to the public. Imagine a Seattle where half of each golf course was rezoned as an urban village while the remainder became a public park, resulting in 4 new urban villages. The mechanism to catalyze the change would be to rezone country clubs to increase their taxes to urban village levels, then also impose very high MHA and developer impact fees on them (the developer impact fee authority granted by the state is designed for new development in areas like this). The result would be a very high tax bill but an affordable sale value, either generating lots of new revenue for affordable housing or forcing an affordable sale to the city. If a club was sold to the city, the city could offer to buy the country club, convert it to a public park with some urban village zoning, then as a land swap, develop parts of Jackson and Jefferson park golf courses into new urban villages directly on light rail. Nobody would be displaced, new walkable neighborhoods on light rail would be created, and developer impact fees plus MHA would pay for schools, parks, transit, and affordable units.
What are your ideas that you think both sides could agree on?
Thanks for this, Eric. The issue has become so divided when in reality we want many of the same things. The city is inevitably growing, so let’s take the opportunity to shape it in a positive way.
One solution I would add is “adaptive reuse.” I have heard a lot of talk about preservation, and people seem to assume pro development is anti preservation. (As an example, though I am pro working with growth, I think the good Shepherd’s adaptive reuse was the way to go). I think many pro development people love our old buildings and want to save them. Liz Dunn of Dunn and Hobbes development has done some great adaptive reuse in capital Hill and slu. (Ex. Mad art or Chop house row). In many cases adding housing while saving and even restoring great old commercial buildings. I believe transfer of air rights helped make this happen. Maintaining the historic grain of smaller scale on the street is great for the neighborhood, I think we can mostly agree on that.
So potentially some win/wins here, but are the YIMBY’s actually open to compromise? I find that hard to believe, as they all talk about how we should not just do HALA, but ELIMINATE SF zoning altogether and then tax people out of their homes. And they sure are unwilling to “Adjust The RPZ Program,” because they say that would be “unfair” and “unwelcoming” to newcomers.”
But, since I’m all about promoting peace, love and harmony, here are my thoughts:
ADUs and DADUs: Speaking for myself, I’m actually open to them and I think they city should cut the permitting fees and a lot of the other nonsense one has to deal with to build one. And it does seem absurd that a 40 unit building doesn’t have to provide ANY onsite parking, while a single DADU does. I do think there are legitimate concerns regarding owner/occupancy, for example, so we’d have to find a proper balance. Also, offer tax breaks to owners who rent them to lower income folks as an incentive. I believe the carrot is better than the stick when it comes to policy issues. Punishing people because you believe they’re all “privileged” encourages pushback.
Rezone To Multifamily If Adjacent Neighbors Agree: I’d have to have a better understanding on this one. My initial thought is that it seems like it would be a policy that would be rife with abuse by developers, at least of the spirit of it. So I’d be very cautious with this.
Block Single Family McMansions In MHA Zones: I’m open to that, as long as buyers are made to understand that before they purchase. After all, if I’m going to gripe about the size of an Apodment, I should be consistent.
Adjust The RPZ Program: The city would get a lot less resistance from at least some of the neighborhood advocates if they grandfathered in on-street parking rights with RPZ stickers for people already living here, whether you own a home or rent an apartment. If they’re so hell bent on kicking us out of our cars and getting families to hop on the bus to take the kids to their soccer match and getting grandma to bike in the rain, then let’s start by telling newcomers that if their newly constructed building doesn’t offer parking, then no RPZ sticker for them. But again, the YIMBY’s will probably never budge on this one.
Convert Golf Courses and Country Clubs Into Urban Villages: I don’t like the idea of making others suffer the effects of HALA just because I’m being made to. At the same time, it doesn’t seem right that HALA is concentrated in relatively small areas, leaving huge swaths of land untouched by HALA. Plus many of the most influential YIMBY’s on the city council are safely insulated from HALA in these areas, so we should make sure we punish them as well. It would also hopefully reduce HALA’s damage to Wallingford by spreading it across a broader land base. And it would, shall we say, “encourage” many more SF homeowners to suddenly get involved in the process. Because right now, it’s mostly just SF homeowners in Urban Villages fighting HALA, while those on the outside don’t have nearly as much of a vested interest, so they don’t get involved. Meanwhile, the YIMBY’s/urbanists are all about their ideology, so it doesn’t matter to them where they live, they’re all going to squawk about upzoning regardless.
So there’s my olive branch.
(OK Wallyhood, why is this comment of mine being detected as spam?)
Thanks hayduke! I appreciate the detailed thoughts here. These ideas won’t bring the two sides together on HALA of course- most urbanists are in favor of any ideas that increase density and discourage driving. HALA does that, so they’re in favor. So sure, YIMBY’s support auctioning off all the parking places in the city to the highest bidder and eliminating the RPZ program completely.
The goal here is to come up with ideas that could play a role in whatever compromise the next mayor cooks up after HALA. If NIMBYs and YIMBYs just keep yelling at each other then the developers that wrote HALA and underwrite most of our politicians will happily come in to write the next set of ideas for density. Even if the ideas we come up with here have no impact, I wanted to offer something I could point to as a retort to the NIMBY epithet.
(Reposting my comment, since for some reason it was “detected as spam’)
So potentially some win/wins here, but are the YIMBY’s actually open to compromise? I find that hard to believe, as they all talk about how we should not just do HALA, but ELIMINATE SF zoning altogether and then tax people out of their homes. And they sure are unwilling to “Adjust The RPZ Program,” because they say that would be “unfair” and “unwelcoming” to newcomers.”
But, since I’m all about promoting peace, love and harmony, here are my thoughts:
ADUs and DADUs: Speaking for myself, I’m actually open to them and I think they city should cut the permitting fees and a lot of the other nonsense one has to deal with to build one. And it does seem absurd that a 40 unit building doesn’t have to provide ANY onsite parking, while a single DADU does. I do think there are legitimate concerns regarding owner/occupancy, for example, so we’d have to find a proper balance. Also, offer tax breaks to owners who rent them to lower income folks as an incentive. I believe the carrot is better than the stick when it comes to policy issues. Punishing people because you believe they’re all “privileged” encourages pushback.
Rezone To Multifamily If Adjacent Neighbors Agree: I’d have to have a better understanding on this one. My initial thought is that it seems like it would be a policy that would be rife with abuse by developers, at least of the spirit of it. So I’d be very cautious with this.
Block Single Family McMansions In MHA Zones: I’m open to that, as long as buyers are made to understand that before they purchase. After all, if I’m going to gripe about the size of an aPodment, I should be consistent.
Adjust The RPZ Program: The city would get a lot less resistance from at least some of the neighborhood advocates if they grandfathered in on-street parking rights with RPZ stickers for people already living here, whether you own a home or rent an apartment. If they’re so hell bent on kicking us out of our cars and getting families to hop on the bus to take the kids to their soccer match and getting grandma to bike in the rain, then let’s start by telling newcomers that if their newly constructed building doesn’t offer parking, then no RPZ sticker for them. But again, the YIMBY’s will probably never budge on this one.
Convert Golf Courses and Country Clubs Into Urban Villages: I don’t like the idea of making others suffer the effects of HALA just because I’m being made to. At the same time, it doesn’t seem right that HALA is concentrated in relatively small areas, leaving huge swaths of land untouched by HALA. Plus many of the most influential YIMBY’s on the city council are safely insulated from HALA in these areas, so we should make sure we punish them as well. It would also hopefully reduce HALA’s damage to Wallingford by spreading it across a broader land base. And it would, shall we say, “encourage” many more SF homeowners to suddenly get involved in the process. Because right now, it’s mostly just SF homeowners in Urban Villages fighting HALA, while those on the outside don’t have nearly as much of a vested interest, so they don’t get involved. Meanwhile, the YIMBY’s/urbanists are all about their ideology, so it doesn’t matter to them where they live, they’re all going to squawk about upzoning regardless.
So there’s my olive branch.
Thanks for posting this Eric! As you know, I don’t agree with all of what you’ve proposed but it opens up alternative conversations, which is helpful in and of itself. However, when you write ‘the developers that wrote HALA’ above you are reinforcing the very polarization that you’re lamenting in you piece. The fine points of MHA were negotiated between market rate and non-profit affordable housing developers but HALA was written by a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
Thanks Rick, I appreciate you engaging on this, I’d love to hear more detailed feedback from you on the ideas above, I’d be happy to post on Wallyhood for you.
Regarding HALA, the key issue regarding input is that the people who live on the land being upzoned weren’t invited to have any say in the grand bargain. Sure, there were lots of different types of downtown developers and lobbyists that provided input, but what should have been the most important voice was excluded. Anyhow, we’re not going to come together on HALA, so I’m trying to keep the focus on what’s next.
People being taxed out of their homes is a result of not building up, not because of HALA or anything like that.
Tax goes up because property price goes up. And to suppress that you have to support build up. Don’t try to blame the consequences of what you support on the other side.
Not so much, really – taxes will go up if your property’s value goes up relative to other taxed properties, but as the overall base value for the county goes up, the county continues to collect the same revenue, by dropping the rates.
If your property is rezoned to higher density, we’d expect the value to go up – relatively – and Rob Johnson can be seen on video explaining why it’s a good thing that you’ll be taxed out of your home. No one has to blame it on “the other side” – they’ve already taken credit for it.
My point is that it’s happening not because HALA. It’s happening because of how convenient Wallingford is for people working in downtown, and anti-HALA is making the property tax hike worse. Wallingford property price overtook places like Madison Valley for its location, and if you want to suppress that you’d need to have more houses available in Wallingford or places even more convenient, not somewhere out in Aurora.
Whatever. I’m sure we’ve been through this before, and this comment thread isn’t going to benefit from another endless rehearsal of the HALA follies.
The first point is a great idea. Decreasing permitting cost and facilitating the addition of DADUs and ADUs would help. I have personally toyed with this idea but have no clue where to start. This may also help preserve neighborhood character while allowing if you more people to move in. Also, I would really like to see promises for additional public resources for any zoning changes. We don’t have a community center and our library is pitifully small and some of our bus lines are very unreliable. I would like to see in writing promises to create more schools (or reclaim our neighborhood schools!), larger libraries, better transportation options, community centers and new parks that the influx of people will certainly use.
Parks, community centers, and libraries need land. Whose house are we tearing down? Typically those are only easy to add if we can re-plan blocks of lands.
TJ – You’re such a helpful, solution-oriented person. Here’s an idea – how about we put athletic fields on top of parking lots? Or cap I-5? Put a community center in the Good Shepherd Center? And you’ve GOT to be kidding me that the only idea you have for a new library is to tear down someone’s house. How about we ask a developer to put a library into a nice mixed used apartment? Come on – try harder!
I agree – we need innovative solutions if we are going to increase density. We are about to have a new high school in the middle of an urban village and it’s a great opportunity to think about how Lincoln (and Hamilton) could become community spaces – library, community center – in the non school hours. Prime real estate that sits vacant for months at a Time is not good use of space in a high density area. We need more innovative solutions!
Yeah, I am with you. Tear down some houses so we can build mixed-used apartments.
Thanks, Eric. What is upsetting about all of this – is that the
City has made it clear from the get-go that they don’t want your ideas, nor anyone else’s.
It’s false to say anti-HALA means people are not driven out of the neighborhood. People are already moving out of Wallingford at an increasing pace due to higher rent, higher property tax, and the allure of cashing in the high price. Anti-HALA does not lead to status quo.
There are no easy compromises because effectively not even all the anti-HALA people want the same thing, and not all the pro-HALA people want the same thing. It’s not two camps. It’s a wide spectrum of wish lists. It’s not like Seattle is a homogeneous city.
Go visit Ballard, especially north of downtown, where zoning is similar to what’s proposed for Wallingford. Almost every block is filled with construction debris and shuttered homes. Sure, Wallingford is changing either way, but upzoning pours jet fuel on the rate of change. The sad thing is that upzoning does not need to mean more demolitions, it’s just that HALA ignores that issue entirely and Rob Johnson is setting MHA rates at a laughably low level.
“upzoning pours jet fuel on the rate of change”
A faster pace of change means more people with less rather than more money get homes here now, everybody is able to have a home for less money, and there are fewer homeless people.
A faster pace of change is a fairly urgent need.
You know we don’t all believe it means that at all – the less affluent here are the first who are going to be displaced, and the last to come back, many years down the road. Let’s not use this article’s comments to rehash that yet again.
Brian, do you have sympathy for the people who fear that
change will destroy the character of neighborhood? If so, what can you stay to
put them at ease?
It depends what they mean by “destroy the character of the neighborhood.”
Obviously, since I chose to live here and have no intention of moving, there are a lot of things I like about it, and would be sorry to see change, so can certainly empathize with that.
On the other hand, If enabling more people who can’t afford the option of a single family detached home on a large lot to live here is what they count as “destruction,” no I don’t sympathize, but I can put their minds at ease by offering the observation that there are pre-modern zoning *plexes and DADUs scattered about Wallingford that are part of its physical character today, and it seems unlikely to me that some more will ruin everything. (In point of fact, I’d say they’ll make our human character better by preventing the neighborhood from becoming more and more skewed toward a combination of older / richer / whiter.)
And for me that makes those places even more livable. Ballard changed from a boring semi-suburb that one can easy find everywhere to a vibrant place with tons of interesting shops and restaurants. It’s a great place to live if not for its awful location that makes it hard to get anywhere else. Why would you rather have the old Ballard when Denny’s was the defining feature of the neighborhood?
People like hanging out in Ballard because they left Ballard Avenue mostly intact. They like Ballard because it’s got, how shall I say it, “character?” They sure as hell aren’t there to enjoy the stunning architecture of 7 story boxes jammed with efficiency units.
You are overselling the buildings there. Nobody go there to admire those buildings. University Village is also super busy with even more visitors and newer buildings.
What people like these days are comfortable walking spaces (outdoor strongly preferred) and easy to assess shops. Ballard Avenue and University Village both got that. And then to sustain the shops, you need good stream of customers. In Ballard it’s the dense population providing that. In University Village it’s the massive parking lots.
Many of the buildings on Stone Way are not designed for good retail spaces, but Stone Way itself is too wide with too much traffic to be ever great for retail anyway. In Wallingford I think the better chance of having a good retail district might be redesigning Wallingford Ave or Tangletown or waterfront. For 45th, traffic is always going to be a concern.
Wait, what??? People do go to Ballard because of Old Ballard. That’s where all the things to do are. Music, pubs. And University Village is a comfortable walking space? Are you smoking crack? If by comfortable you mean I’m worried I’m going to be plowed over by the next SUV looking for a parking space, then yeah I guess.
People go to old Ballard not because it’s old. The old Ballard never had many visitors in the past, because it didn’t have the interesting businesses that’s now sustained by the much higher density of population.
And you think walking around University Village isn’t comfortable enough? Are you comparing it to 45th?
OK I can’t help myself. You’re something else. My friend owns a business – walking tours of historic Ballard – and has for years. It’s constantly sold out and has been for years. Old Ballard Avenue has not only had vibrant, iconic bars, restaurants and retail for decades, they were also one of the first to successfully establish “neighborhood character” (cue Halloween scream!) as a basis for establishing a historic preservation overlay. Just stop. Take a week off this site. See the world. Anything other than another post.
I am curious now. Are you talking about a summer-only small operation with relatively short history? Or are you talking about there were always lots of people eager to visit dive bars, discount stores, and Denny’s?
Not unlike national politics, I’m not sure we will ever see a win/win because a win/win is not the strategy for our politicians. We don’t seem to pass things everyone agrees on and leave the contentious issues aside. Instead, every potential win for the people is used as a bargaining chip to get acceptance for a loss to the people. Example: we’ll vote for school funding but only if we give a Boeing-like tax break to manufacturers.
No one likes the parking requirement for DADU but they’re holding it ransom for developer gimmes. I think the city pols (who actually work for the people) should hold increased heights for ransom. You want to build higher? Create this many affordable units and pay this much in impact fees.
It isn’t fair to say no one likes that parking requirement – there’s some concern over a situation where street parking is tight, and accessory units start bringing in more cars with nowhere else to park. RPZ proposal above could alleviate that, though.
Or I’ve heard this suggested: rather than “rumor has it most people find it’s easy to get that requirement waived”, they could codify some conditions that would typically be used to justify a waiver, and then you’d know out front whether the requirement applies to you or not.
But as you observe, mutually agreeable compromises like that aren’t the usual direction for city legislation.
“You want to build higher? Create this many affordable units and pay this much in impact fees.”
Have you looked into HALA? That’s what the MHA program is that’s got everyone so excited (in both directions).
Did I say I was anti-HALA? I would say I fall somewhere in between. Many of the pro-HALA folk don’t think there should be any impact fee or required low-income housing. They want the greater heights for nothing. I believe I’ve read quite a bit of “but builders can’t afford that and then they won’t build” from our favorites here.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you had any position on HALA. I just wanted to point out that the MHA program is exactly what you were suggesting. They call that either performance (when the developer builds those units on site) or in-lieu fees (when they pay a fee).
I think there are some people that are against that program, and just want less restrictive zoning, but in general, when folks talk about HALA these days they’re usually talking about that program. When people talk about Impact Fees, I think they’re usually referring to money meant to go to schools and infrastructure rather than affordable housing.
That program does have the effect of slightly retarding development by lowering the offer prices developers are willing to pay, thus reducing the number of people willing to sell, but my personal opinion is that prices are so high anyway, the marginal impact is probably negligible, and asking the rest of us to pay slightly higher prices due to slightly reduced inventory is probably OK, so long as the net effect on units produced is small enough. That’s where you get infighting between affordable housing people.
Sorry if you already knew all this and I was confused.
The people you describe are not pro-HALA folks. They are anti-HALA from the opposite direction, like me. HALA is a compromise, so there are people who doesn’t like it from either sides.
This post and Heyduke’s response are great. Most people, especially in-real-life, are much closer to a pragmatic solution than you would think from following the issue online.
Eric’s point is a good one. City hall can’t listen if all it hears is absolute arguments from XIMBYs.
I agree – this kind of solutions oriented approach is helpful but the NIMBY – YIMBY rhetoric that emanates from city hall does not foster a spirit of cooperation. I think we are all in greater agreement, practically speaking, than it seems on social media and message boards. Thanks Eric for The thoughtful piece.
“Anti-HALA folks paint Ballard as our future if HALA passes, where existing residents are driven out by a construction tsunami and we are left with luxury housing that is 95% tech bros (plus 5% reserved for a few token “poor” people that win the MHA lottery).”
Inaccurately, as the actual threat is that refusal to zone single family areas of Wallingford more like Wallingford make our future one in which those areas become increasingly solely the province of the rich.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6dfcf7aaf26d605c35a1787e66216ef23ee6a40d4ddf11c79a041ce52b8d745c.jpg
There are a few inbuilt assumptions here:
1. We need additional housing to support economic growth in the city.
2. Adding additional housing will help address affordability problem.
If you accept either of these assumptions, then you need to figure out how to add additional housing.
There is a lot in this blog post which I hope people could use to find workable solutions.
Some thoughts:
* Collaborate with homeowners on affordable ADUs and DADUs
I would love this to be a way to meet a lot of our housing needs because I think it is very much in keeping with the character of our neighborhoods. I just wonder how many people will take advantage of this. Has this been studied?
* Rezone To Multifamily If Adjacent Neighbors Agree
I like this because it prevents people becoming neighbors to a huge building which dominates their space. But if your intent is to slow the pace of change it won’t work because because in many cases property developers can afford to compensate the effected neighbors with cash.
* Expand MHA Upzone Areas In Exchange For Limits On The Rate Of Change
This is probably the most important of these proposals because if it can work it addresses the need for development while keeping the character of the neighborhood. I love this in principle, getting people to pay a market rate for limited resource and limiting the rate of change. I worry about the unintended consequences of an auction of a limited asset. Some concerns are: Hording of permits. Blocking out small, local developers. A frenzy to use the permits. The city liking the revenue and expanding the limits. Others liking the limits and using this as another way to reduce supply. As this been done elsewhere? What were the lessons learned?
* Block Single Family McMansions In MHA Zones
In Portland did this increase the creation of multifamily homes? We should be careful doing things which put wealthier people off the neighborhood if we really want an inclusive neighborhood.
* Adjust The RPZ Program So Parking Requirements For New Construction Can Be Eliminated
Great idea. We also need to increase transit, walkability, and car-sharing options. Giving RPZ permits to existing residents to allow them to continue to park is fair. 4 RPZ permits per lot is excessive and will lead to a black market. I don’t think new residents should get a RPZ if them move into a house but not an apartment. I suggest that the number of RPZ be capped. All new residents, house or apartment, join a waitlist for available RPZs.
* Convert Golf Courses and Country Clubs Into Urban Villages And Parks
Building on golf courses whether public or private is very short sighted. Once we build on a green space it is lost forever. Keep the existing open spaces for the future even if they are in private hands.
Finally:
What is missing from these proposals are enhancements to the neighborhood to accommodate additional newcomers. Things like police, fire, public utilities can all be solved with money, but people also need public spaces? Where do we get more of that? What about the number of community centers, play-grounds, and day facilities for older people who many want to downsize into the city? What about improving the walkability of the business districts? What about maintaining or increasing open spaces?
* Adjust The RPZ Program So Parking Requirements For New Construction Can Be Eliminated
Great idea. We also need to increase transit, walkability, and car-sharing options. Giving RPZ permits to existing residents to allow them to continue to park is fair. 4 RPZ permits per lot is excessive and will lead to a black market. I don’t think new residents should get a RPZ if them move into a house but not an apartment. I suggest that the number of RPZ be capped. All new residents, house or apartment, join a waitlist for available RPZs.
Four RPZ permits per lot is really pretty tight. If you count the guest permit, many households already have four, and if we hope to use this to mitigate no required on-site parking for an accessory unit, it’s even tighter in that case.
* Collaborate with homeowners on affordable ADUs and DADUs
I would love this to be a way to meet a lot of our housing needs because I think it is very much in keeping with the scale the buildings in the single family areas. I just wonder how many people will take advantage of this. Has this been studied?
Yes: https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/OngoingInitiatives/EncouragingBackyardCottages/RemovingBarrierstoBackyardCottages.pdf (11 Mb PDF download)
There’s legislation related to that in the works. It was set back by a successful SEPA challenge, but the basis for that revolved around only a couple items in the legislation, one of which wasn’t even considered in the above document. Meanwhile it doesn’t do much for the expense and permitting issues.
Unfortunately most of the attention has gone to the backyard cottages, instead of the more economical and practical mother-in-law apartment.
There is a lot of good info in that document. I don’t see an estimate of how many units would be built in Seattle if these changes were made. The increase building auxiliary units in Portland, OR could be a good model to estimate the potential in Seattle.
Their initial SEPA Declaration of Non-Significance held that there wouldn’t all that many. That question played a significant role in the appeal; Findings and Decision: https://web6.seattle.gov/Examiner/case/document/6828
(7 Mb PDF)
* Rezone To Multifamily If Adjacent Neighbors Agree
I like this because it prevents people becoming neighbors to a huge building which dominates their space. But if your intent is to slow the pace of change it won’t work because because in many cases property developers can afford to compensate the effected neighbors with cash.
* Expand MHA Upzone Areas In Exchange For Limits On The Rate Of Change
This is probably the most important of these proposals because if it can work it addresses the need for development while keeping the character of the neighborhood. I love this in principle, getting people to pay a market rate for limited resource and limiting the rate of change. I worry about the unintended consequences of an auction of a limited asset. Some concerns are: Hording of permits. Blocking out small, local developers. A frenzy to use the permits. The city liking the revenue and expanding the limits. Others liking the limits and using this as another way to reduce supply. As this been done elsewhere? What were the lessons learned?
* Block Single Family McMansions In MHA Zones
In Portland did this increase the creation of multifamily homes? We should be careful doing things which put wealthier people off the neighborhood if we really want an inclusive neighborhood.
You’re probably joking, but I think we don’t need to worry too much about the very wealthy finding a place for themselves in Seattle. The neighborhood livability issues are the same for single family as every other type, so even the rich benefit.
* Convert Golf Courses and Country Clubs Into Urban Villages And Parks
Building on golf courses whether public or private is very short sighted. Once we build on a green space it is lost forever. Keep the existing open spaces for the future even if they are in private hands.
What is missing from these proposals are enhancements to the neighborhood to accommodate additional newcomers. Things like police, fire, public utilities can all be solved with money, but people also need public spaces? Where do we get more of that? What about the number of community centers, play-grounds, and day facilities for older people who many want to downsize into the city? What about improving the walkability of the business districts? What about maintaining or increasing open spaces?