A state House committee has voted down the controversial “transit oriented communities” bill, which would upzone areas around light-rail stations, after objections from Democrat Dave Upthegrove about the lack of minimum parking requirements in the legislation, Publicola reports. Upthegrove—a serious enviro—opposed the legislation because he said it removed local control over parking requirements. Without his vote, the Democratic majority on the committee couldn’t pass the bill. The bill is also getting its first hearing in the Senate today, and could still be amended to pass the House committee.
Last weekend, legislators amended the bill to address one of the objections opponents like John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition have raised—that it imposes a one-size-fits all upzone on poor parts of Seattle. (It doesn’t—the bill only increases potential densities around transit stops, in many cases to levels lower than what’s already allowed—but Fox’s loud objections have gotten traction.) The amendments allow some flexibility to cap building densities at a lower level around 14 of the 42 transit hubs in the legislation; however, areas with lower zoning caps would have to make up for it by adding facilities to accommodate more commuters coming to the station, like bike racks.
Council Member Sally Clark is hosting a public forum tonight on the legislation from 6 to 7:30 pm at the Langston Hughes Cultural Center Auditorium (104 17th Ave. S).
While this may seem important, normally zoning is done on the County level, and Municipal level …
I read Murakami’s opinions in yesterdays paper. Man she’s a pill. Complaining about the destruction of green spaces, and over development making people crazy, or some shit.
I just don’t get these people. There’s plenty of green space in Black Diamond. If you don’t like density…MOVE OUT OF THE FUCKING CITY!
Sorry for yelling.
The SDC is apparently a wannabe waiting for its chance to see owners price out their undesired (read: non-WASP) neighbors so they can swoop in and buy some homes or see local apartments filled with friendly trustafarian neighbors that have a higher neighborhood value than the original undesireds living in that neighborhood.
“Upzoning will displace people!” — yeah, so will uppricing desireable SFHs and 3-story apartments within half a mile of transit stations.
This is the same song and dance, ignoring supply and demand so you can keep home values artificially high and undesireables displaced. That’s why it’s called the Seattle Displacement Coalition, they love to see people displaced! These SDC folks seemingly love to use the people they want to see gone as human shields, screaming “racism” or “displacement” when someone wants to make housing affordable. Ordinary folks from that neighborhood need to learn that the people who want to live by those transit stations don’t care where the space is going to come from, they’ll move in anyway. Replacing those parking lots with 40 units instead of 4 will make it that much more likely that they’ll keep their home.
SE Seattle’s new motto: “If you’re black, you’d better pack.”
hard to call Upthegrove a “serious enviro” after this.
@2- 4,
Have fun in your Capitol Hill/Stranger echo chamber – mainstream Democrats know they can safely ignore you.
@3 the logic of the SDC is baffling. More density means more room for everybody. Less density means the valley down through Hillman city is going to be a sea of white faces in under 10 years.
@4 What are you talking about? Wanting to allow something to remain under local control rather than state mandate damages his environmentalist credibility? Hardly.
@5 Why is when a dipshit tries to take a shot at you on the slog they accuse you of somehow being affiliated with Capitol Hill?
Actually, I own a home in the valley, right smack dab in the middle of one of the areas that was to be upzoned.
@8,
Capitol Hill is a state of mind – and you’ve evidently got it pretty bad.
I’ll give you this, though – at least you’re willing to acknowledge that your neighborhood was going to be upzoned, which is more than I can say for ECB.
Keri is a man and has just moved out of Capitol Hill to some more suburban area of the city – maybe Beacon Hill. Funny when the Stranger whiners’ complain about losing a piece of crap block the peanut gallery is silent. If a reporter says the loss of green or open space is bad, bash him.
@6,
Let us say that you rent an affordable house in the Valley now. Upzone that property, and your landlord has a powerful financial incentive to kick you out and redevelop the property (and yes, the resulting units WILL rent for a substantial amount more than the ones they replace)
That is what displacement looks like in the real world, folks. And yes, it’s turning the Rainier Valley whiter and whiter by the day – and many folks see no good reason for City tax subsidies (and State mandates) to be used to accelerate the process.
@11 – why do you hate America so?
@11 Where have you been? that is going to happen anyway. Its been happening for the last decade. Take a look around for shits sake. Increased density allows for more mixed income housing, and in turn will allow more of the original inhabitants of the neighborhood to stay.
No density=all white
density=diversity
@13,
Nonsense – and repeating your assertion ad nauseum doesn’t change the FACT that minorities are being pushed out of the Rainier Valley by the gentrification through density that you support.
…heck, even Bellevue is ethnically more diverse than Seattle is now.
Mr. X, what happens when everyone wants to live somewhere, has more than enough money, and there are only so many places to live?
Supply and demand, baby.
4 units certainly sell far faster than 40!
Behold the evil development of the south end.
http://www.seedseattle.org/
@17,
Just to clarify – I have no problem with nonprofit developers building subsidized housing.
What I have a problem with is demolishing perfectly functional (if older) unsubsidized affordable housing to appease the gods of density, and then pretending that replacing it with fewer units of subsidized housing (and a lot of market rate units that are beyond the means of most of the displaced renters) solves the resulting problem.
The net result is housing that costs more, not less.
@16,
The affluent folks you cite wouldn’t choose to live in older existing affordable market-rate rental housing – they want that stuff replaced with brand-new shiny little boxes with marble counters and stainless steel appliances.
As a Capitol Hill resident, I know from limited parking and think minimum parking requirements are unnecessary. People should bus to the lightrail. If they drive and can’t find parking, they will soon learn to lose the car.
Locals living near the stations will experience the problems we Cap Hillbillies have dealt with since time began and learn to cope. My driving friends know to leave their cars at home and bus or take a cab when coming to visit.
lorax @4: hard to call Upthegrove a “serious enviro” after this.
Dave Upthegrove is–and always has been–your typical nice-guy environmentalist who’s perfectly happy being an environmentalist as long as it doesn’t involve standing up for anything.
This is a fellow who has been perfectly happy calling himself a green while supporting building a new, expanded viaduct.
@19 – If they’re affluent, they wouldn’t need developers and new zoning laws to remodel their homes. They would just do it themselves and get on with it.
Also, crying about how poor people are getting treated unfairly makes you sound like 17 year old who hasn’t realized quite yet that life is not exactly fair.
@10: No, the reference was to Pat Murakami, the lady from Mount Baker quoted in yesterday’s Times.
Cressona @ 21:
Maybe it hasn’t penetrated your Seattle-centric Green Taliban brain yet that Dave Upthegrove represents Burien, Normandy Park, and Des Moines, and that his constituents, who get into and through Seattle on 509 and 99, rely on the Viaduct.
I mean — voting the way your constituents want you to vote — whoever heard of such a thing?