commented on Pill Hill Luxury Tower Officially Opens Today
If Seattle had any huevos it would require more than the measly 5% inclusionary affordable units found in Murray and O'Brien's HALA "Grand Bargain, which also lets the project pay in lieu of fees instead of making affordable units on site.
In a project like this, with 168 units, a 15% affordability requirement onsite would have created 25 homes on First Hill.
Nov 3, 2015
commented on We Do Not Want the Old Seattle, We Want the New and Future Seattle
Charles, don't be an idiot. This city is run by corporate and development interests. That's who I'm saying we need to take back the city from. I can understand this is over Savage's head, but I would have expected more from you (assuming you are The Stranger's resident intellectual).
Everyone should read up on Molotch, the neo-Marxist economist who has been writing about this stuff for the last 40 years. You think Charles would have...
Better yet,Charles, google "neoliberaism urbanism", and read up. But watch out, your pretty little head may explode...
Nov 2, 2015
commented on Where to Get Drunk with Politicians and Watch Tomorrow's Election Results Come In
Hey, SECB, it's not that I "don't like you" personally. It's that you falsely represent me. "Bill Bradburd is a condescending, obstructionist NIMBY creep who resents newcomers and wants to "put a tarp on" neighborhoods like Capitol Hill that he thinks are growing too fast. That's not how living in a city works, Bill."
Let's parse this:
I'll cop to condescending. Particularly when talking to certain journalists that have a narrow understanding of land use policy and simply believe that if we build more it will make housing cheaper, or that density in and of itself is the sole marker of success. Let me ask you this (in a condescending tone): "what is the density of Capitol Hill?, and what would you like it to be?, and over what time period?". Because this is what leads to planning for transit infrastructure, schools, etc. And will help assess how much displacement your growth will cause. I prefer to talk in specifics (unlike my opponent who only talks policy in platitudes).
I'll cop to obstructionist. I helped stop a 2,800 parking space big box mall in Little Saigon that had no housing. Bad urbanism, eh? I also helped keep corporate logos off our downtown skyline. Perhaps our corporate overlords thought that obstructionist. And a list of other ill-conceived policies. Let us all know which of these you favored and perhaps I'll apologize.
In my neighborhood I have publicly supported (and/or worked to establish) two Nickelsville encampments, an undocumented day laborer center, a homeless rest stop, and a mental health crisis facility (3 doors down from my house). Hardly NIMBY.
You'll have to check in with my 8 year old to compare notes on whether I am a creep. She says I am sometimes, usually around things like stealing her Halloween candy.
I hardly resent newcomers. The household density in my neighborhood has doubled since I've been here. How many newcomers have moved into Dan's neighborhood? You're regurgitating some pretty heavy Valdez talking points here.
"Wants to "put a tarp on" neighborhoods like Capitol Hill that he thinks are growing too fast". Well, some good research here, lifting a quote from a summary of an interview with The Urbanist. Perhaps context would be good. What I was describing was that for some neighborhoods like Ballard and Capitol Hill, where growth is 3 and 4 times projected growth through 2024, we should consider the impacts to these communities - are transit systems working, do we have adequate amenities to support that population, etc. And is the community dealing well with all that change. Jane Jacobs (who never mentions "vibrant") talks about the fabric of the community. I was suggesting that after all of that growth, "putting a tarp on the neighborhood" (using things like raised linkage fees to steer development elsewhere) to allow new businesses to establish, transportation patterns to work out, and for community to build (rather than bash or hate) would be good for it, AND that we should be channeling growth into other neighborhoods that are underdeveloped anyway (like the south end light rail station areas). It's an urban planning concept of identifying areas of stability and areas of change (he said condescendingly) to help focus investments and plan for growth. We have done a poor job of balancing growth and we have had negative impact on some neighborhoods. Its not the "growing too fast" that's the problem. I don't give a hoot about how fast it happens -- unless a by-product is displacement, stratospheric rents and cost of living, congestion, inadequate transit, and aggression amongst neighbors and so on. Since that seems to be happening, I say let's slow down and figure out how to mitigate these. There are plenty of other places to develop in the city.
"That's not how living in a city works, Bill." - I've lived in big cities my whole life (Chicago, NY, Philly, San Francisco). Probably more years than the SECB has combined. Stop being so fucking condescending.
Oh. And stop by and I'll buy you a drink or 3. November 4 is a new day...
Oct 29, 2015
commented on Hey, Seattle Politicians, Get to Work!
" Let's use an [development] impact fee for our schools."
Let's use development impact fee for Transportation (as we could do)
Let's use development impact fee for Fire stations (as we could do)
Let's use development impact fee for Parks (as we cold do)
Oops, we're using levies. Move Seattle Levy, Fire Levy, Metropolitan Parks Levy.
See a pattern of avoidance?
Glad to the The Stranger dipping their toe in the water...