What was "Issue 6," just out of curiosity?

Issue 6 stated that the Department of Planning Development failed to "meaningfully consider" the impacts of future development (i.e. increased density). This was challenged as being too broad and vague, so the appellant had to revise Issue 6 to address the impacts of increased development on social services.

you do know the front page of the Seattle Times is all about the controversy over the UW Husky Stadium light rail station today, don't you?

(sits amazed at the Hill-centric obsessions of the Stranger)

@3) Will, if by "the Hill" you mean "Beacon Hill" and "Mount Baker" then yes, we're obsessed.

not criticizing, just they have hundreds of comments on that story, so I'm surprised there's nothing on it on SLOG ... especially since it's the next station from your offices.

This is relevant to other neighborhoods because of the possibility it will happen there when transit-oriented rezoning comes along. Since Capitol Hill is getting a station, what happens in SE Seattle now could be repeated on Cap Hill soon enough.

This is relevant to other neighborhoods because of the possibility it will happen there when transit-oriented rezoning comes along. Since Capitol Hill is getting a station, what happens in SE Seattle now could be repeated on Cap Hill soon enough.

I appreciate Cienna following up with news about a variety of neighborhoods. The people behind the most recent SE Seattle anti-density appeals are linked with folks who've protested development on Capitol Hill--most notably Dennis Saxman. Since the development process is the same city wide, it's important to understand the tools people opposed to development are using and the ways it's possible to fight them. (Alternately, if you agree that development is bad, all nonprofits are somehow in cahoots with developers and the city...then it's good to know how to throw a wrench in the works.)

Now, what I'm wondering about is the way that an appeal like this -- even though the Beacon Hill one has mostly (but not entirely) been thrown out, and the North Rainier one was completely thrown out -- can derail a neighborhood plan update. Since the update can only be made once a year, any appeal, whether upheld or not, seems to be able to prevent the update from being made for an entire year. Can individuals just continually file appeals year after year to postpone a plan update indefinitely?

Well, it’s amazing. The miracle has been done. Hat’s off. Well done, as we know that “hard work always pays off”, after a long struggle with sincere effort it’s done.
-----------------------------
johnyrock17
Travel Planning

How about if the City worked better with the neighborhoods and got more participation in and acceptance of their plans?