The problem is that you in the media have this thing about labels.

When a rag calls itself the Seattle Times, you assume it represents the views of people who live in Seattle.

But anyone with a sixth-grade education could do a google search and find out from the distro maps that it's really the Non-Seattle Times, for people who don't live in Seattle, and who are envious of our fast-growing urban environment.

Toss their idea in the trashheap.

"Frank Blethen ...has been personally lobbying city council members over the past couple years..." So when are cyclists going to start to lobby the city council? It's not enough to bitch and moan folks. If you have a cause, you have to push for it. And yes it might mean making a sacrifice for your cause, like taking a half day off work or going to an evening city council meeting instead of grabbing a beer with the buddies. Politics is ugly business, it's not fun, and it takes time. Whining is not effective.

The Times may be self-interested but it doesn't mean they aren't right. Effectively mandating rent control on 20% of small-to-moderate sized buildings is a great way to kneecap denser development.

What those who sit on the Times' editorial board know about economics could not fill an empty shell from Frank Blethen's dog-shootin' .22.

The Times just needs to go out of business. Ignore it and it will.
We tax to compensate for externalities in lieu of allowing them. Luxury condos built with no setback cut off light angles and views and increase single occupance vehicle loads. As a compensation the city requires the builders to build affordable housing.
I'd prefer if the city simply mitigated the externalities - do what Haussman did in Paris and create Iron-fisted rules on setbacks, light angles, etc. But if we are going to allow developers to throw up sidewalk to sidewalk monoliths, then the least we can do is demand some form of public compensation.

I'm predicting Seattle will be a ghost town in five years as people flee the crime, density and violence. Apartment prices here are a rip...no doubt.

Nanny state libertarians

#6 lives in Spanaway.

Taxes do not exist to discourage the things they are taxing. If that were true then income tax would discourage people from making more money. Taxes exist for one reason: to generate revenue.

@6: Yeah, right. I'm predicting Seattle will have a bunch more people in five years. But, then again, so will Spanaway.

What is "affordable?" My take home is $1,700 a month but I can't find a one-bedroom or studio apartment, accessible by wheelchair, for less than $1,000 a month (even in Shoreline),

@11,

Yup - the real problem is that the entire Incentive Zoning proposal subsidizes units that most working folks would not begin to regard as affordable, and that are already being produced by the for-profit market anyway.

Start subsidizing units aimed at incomes below 60% of median and we can talk. Until then, it is every bit the developer giveaway/incentive to demolish truly affordable housing that groups like the Seattle Displacement Coalition say it is.

Dom -
What does that fact that Blethen drives a porsche have to do with anything? Inane classist pabulum is why the vast majority of thinking Seattleites discount any "news" from the Stranger. Nice work continuing the trend.

Not that it matters, but you're wrong with your analysis. What happens in the real world is that the condo buyer or renter pays the tax - not the developer. If you think that prices or rent are too high now, with this proposal they'll go up another 30+% (20% plus soft costs, plus developer's profit, etc). So Seattle will increasingly become a city affordable to the very rich and the very poor. Not an attractive future.

And for those who argue that developers won't pass on the costs because of the current economic realities - you're also right. And what that means is that like the Seattle Times points out, this tax will lead to fewer housing units being built. And in this scenario, we all lose again.

So again Dom, you might want to try to think through and understand these issues before attacking the "great minds". Then again, your juvenile jabs at Blethens wealth will no doubt play well with the natives.

Shockingly, I am going to say Sargon Bighorn @2 has it right.

Seriously, on the average issue, it's considered a big deal if only TEN people phone or TWENTY people email the city council and the mayor on ANY issue.

What if every poster on this thread did that?

Wouldn't that be more effective?

@ 13) I don't claim to have the final math on incentive zoning. Nobody does. But the workforce-housing program is a minor drain on return for the incentive of a massive boost in gross revenue. Giving developers twice the floor area without any public return is foolish.

I mentioned Frank Blethen's Posche because The Times just came out in favor of taxing bikes and then saying they support taxing things we need less of. Why doesn't Blethen support bikes? He drives a fast car to work. It has nothing to do with his wealth--although the fact that he's wealthy and wants to tax the poor and exempt those who do get wealthy from development is pretty, um, rich.

The only reason incentive zoning is being proposed (and will pass) is because the City/State/Feds don't put enough money into affordable housing, so the non-profits that produce it can't keep up with the need. Incentive zoning is just to get the for-profits to join in the task of creating affordable housing.

Plus, no matter how you slice it... if you give the developers additional floor space (which translates directly into additional revenue), there shouldn't be any outrage or surprise with requesting that the developers "pay" for it by creating some affordable housing. (Did anyone mention it's probably going to be temporary affordable housing? [Just 50 years.])

On a final note, has anyone complaining about the incentive zoning noticed that the incentive zoning program Seattle is going to enact is going to be VOLUNTARY? Don't want to build affordable housing? You don't have to!! You'll just have to build according to the old zoning rules (the pre-upzoned rules).

Jesus Christ people everywhere can be stupid!


Signed,

An affordable housing developer who actually reads the details
(and who, admittedly, is somewhat conflicted about incentive zoning)

with... without
and who denies
it's what the
fighting's all about...

-pink floyd

@13
Translation "Hooray for me and fuck you!"

kinaidos: your point of reference for how to handle 21st century urban policy is HAUSMANN? are you CRAZY?


Hey Wait: yes.

I think anyone involved in the building sector can see that incentive zoning isn't going to FORCE any developers to build affordable housing.

Whether or not the developers are interested, or whether the housing is really going to be "affordable" to those who need it is another issue altogether.

Boo condos. Aren't there already a bunch of condos that were being auctioned off because no one would buy them?

Here is my problem with "affordable housing" - the people who market it seem to have no idea what "affordable" is. I live in low-income, government subsidized housing (which is a bit better off than "affordable" housing in blocks of "regular priced" housing) and it still takes up nearly 50% of my income.