"In South Lake Union there are no major plans for parks or schools or mass transit to serve any of these thousands of residents or workers."

...other than that fancy streetcar, and that awesome refurbished South Lake Union park, that is.

Nice of him to conveniently omit that it's the Seattle Slimes' own 1% supremacist position that we should have constant runaway free-market based growth, while simultaneously never asking the weathly to pay their fair share of taxes to invest in the public infrastructure to actually support that growth and quality of life.

Remember when we had a chance to turn SLU into GINORMOUS park and public open space?

What was the Stranger's stance on that?

Let me refresh your memory:

"I was for the Commons, the dumb fucks doing news for us then were against it. I wrote in favor, stumped for it.

But the dumb fucks at the paper -- long gone, not missed -- prevailed and we urged a no vote. Ask Keck next time you see him: his refusal to overrule the dumb fucks is a huge regret. If the Stranger had been for the Commons, aggressively, it's possible it would've passed.

Oh, well." - Dan Savage.

You know what happens when you get all those evil, tall buildings in and people buy up all the spaces in them? Prices drop for everybody else. Why are you fighting so hard for higher housing prices, Danny Westneat?

Normally love Westneat's stuff but this is just lazy and sad. More density in downtown is unarguably a good thing

when you see the name John Fox in your coalition, you shouldn't be in it.

There's no way I'm paying for that rag, so I've hit the pay wall. If someone would please summarize, I'd be grateful.

@8 clear your cache and you will get more free views.

This isn't about Seattle's runaway growth, this is about the absence of infrastructure to support the runaway growth. There's nothing wrong with building all of these new residential units - so long as the public infrastructure they will require is provided along with the housing.

New construction - especially on the scale in SLU, Ballard, and Lake City - means additional demands on roads, transit, parks, libraries, schools, and utilities. The state allows local governments to assess impact fees to partially offset the costs of this infrastructure, but Seattle has set these fees far too low. There is absolutely no money for schools, for example. And you wonder why all of our schools are overcrowded. Yes, it is partially to blame on exceptionally poor planning by the District, but it is also due to new construction without the necessary accompanying infrastructure.

The argument here is just one step more nuanced than opposition to new building. It is opposition to new building without the infrastructure to support it. Try to keep up.

@9: So how is he asking people to vote on our most recent ballot? He doesn't seem to mention that in any of his concern-troll- er, rambling. What is his solution for the lack of infrastructure, other than "OMG don't build new buildings"?

@8: just open in an incognito window in Chrome. I have trained myself do reflexively do it whenever i see a Times URL

You know what happens when you get all those evil, tall buildings in and people buy up all the spaces in them? Prices drop for everybody else.

This statement is completely divorced from reality. That'll happen if we turn into Detroit.

This is why we need to stop listening to NIMBYs and encourage them to rot in the suburbs, with tolls to enter Seattle for non-residents

I don't see how calling for better planning and infrastructure to support growth is NIMBYism. Nowhere does he say they should stop building in SLU.

Oh BS. He's talking about a lot of very tall buildings. That are taking over what little green space there is in the neighborhood. And he's asking where are the plans for the parks, schools and transit to handle the coming crowds. And he's implying that perhaps it's time to ask more of developers than offering fake affordable housing. Hardly NIMBYism.

And @10 - he pretty much says he's voting yes on Prop 1 since he'll soon lose his parking. And @3 - somehow Danny Westneat is responsible for the Blethan's anti-tax activism? And @5 - really? How's that? Despite tons of new housing going in rents are higher now than ever.

God - can't you strangerites stand a little bit of diversity of opinion? This is like the $15/hr wage crap - if you're not for doing it Sawant's way, you're an evil, selfish rich douchebag.

Will in Seattle is right, NIMBYS should take their mediocre pizza joints and move out of Capitol Hill.

@ 5 - What the hell are YOU smoking?

Prices never, ever, ever drop... Show me just one instance of where Seattle rents have DROPPED because more apartment buildings were built. Just one example, please...

What incentive would ANY landlord have to lower rents, when they've been getting higher and higer rents all along? Sheesh...

@ 14 - Completely agree. There is no reason that this growth cannot be managed. And there's especially no reason that we can't at least have a conversation about it... Sheesh...

I'm starting to think people at the Stranger just hate everything anyone says about anything.

@1 I LOL'd.

@13, I love that proposal. Let's put that shit on the ballot.

The only other thought I have is that The Stranger has been sounding pretty fucking parochial itself lately, so I'd get off that high horse before you take a nasty fall, Dom.

All Danny had to do is substitute "infrastructure" for "grade separated bicycle paths" and he would be immune from the nimby label.

I'm with @14 & @15. It's couched in bland 'lifestyle' columnist-ese, but Westneat is advocating for growth with direction and planning, plus transit, parks, and impact fees. Seems like concepts we should all support at this point, no?

@21:
Of course those are good things, that's responsible growth. What people are taking issue with here (well, what I'm taking issue with) is that he only seems to care now that one of these buildings is going in across the street from his office. And, now he only cares about public transit because parking will become more difficult. He only cares because it will affect his personal space, not because of anything to do with the city at large. That's NIMBYness and it sucks. It's worthwhile to point it out. Why should I listen to his opinion when he only cares about what affects him directly? He doesn't give two shits about my life or the lives of anybody else in Seattle.

@22: That is a truly bizarre response to that column.

@23: Really? You don't think it's kind of bullshit to only start caring about density and public transit when it directly affects you? I don't own a car but recognize that parking is something that people care about. Why is it so difficult to imagine that public transit is a good and important thing even if you don't use it?

@17 You're right that prices never drop. New housing can relieve upward pressure on rents elsewhere, but that's about it.

My impression is that the number one thing driving up housing prices in any region is how much people want to live there, and that there is literally no way to actually produce enough housing to accommodate all the people who potentially want to live in a desirable area.

If you want cheap housing, you have to go someplace nobody wants to be. And frequently the reason nobody wants to be there, is because there aren't any jobs there.

That's why the free market will never be able to take care of the affordable housing problem.