Well, don't wear fleece then!

Expensiver.

" First, he mentioned that data shows that mixed-income neighborhoods are good for everyone—both the higher- and lower-income people who live in them. Which is an important reminder for people who keep arguing that the only solution is to just have developers keep building whatever and wherever they want, without much restriction, and let the market take care of it"

This isn't a reminder, it's a non sequitur. The people proposing policies that will (eventually) kick out the poor and middle classes are the NIMBYs, not people fighting against height restrictions and minimum parking requirements.

This is not wonky stuff. It certainly isn't any wonkier than the other serious stuff the Stranger writes about. So let's not use that word; it sounds like Slog is becoming ublicola (as someone else mentioned the other day).

"Affordable"housing doesn't mean anything. What I call affordable bears no resemblance to what an Amazon emloyee would call affordable. Just cut to the chase and contrast market-rate housing (i.e. $2,000 for a nice one-bedroom) with low-income housing ($700 for a barebones one-bedroom). There are no takers for a moderate-rate unit in Seattle, since middle-income renters don't really exist anymore.

So it would be interesting to see how many housing develoers would even consider a "mixed-income" develoment which contained low-income units. I'm guessing zero. That's where the City needs to throw its weight, because otherwise, it is indeed going to be all market-rate.

Stuck "P" again, @4? It was working there for awhile. Same keyboard or new one?

@5, yeah, I got tired of using a second keyboard laid over the lato (ha) and am back to the stuck-keyed one. Not ready to buy another lato yet.