The Sightline Institute’s Eric de Place has some harsh words for the Seattle Displacement Coalition’s John Fox and Carolee Colter, who recently wrote an editorial criticizing legislation that would encourage dense development around light rail stations. De Place goes even further than I did yesterday, calling the editorial “terribly misinformed” and pointing to nearly a dozen sources that counter Colter and Fox’s bizarre claim that density is worse for the environment than sprawl. (Their basic argument, that tearing down buildings and building new ones creates carbon emissions and that’s bad, ignores the massive body of research demonstrating that sprawling, car-oriented suburbs have a tremendous negative impact on the environment, and that city living is the greenest lifestyle there is.) Instead of looking at the evidence, de Place writes, Colter and Fox “resorted to sophistry and innuendo. Perhaps they believe they’re doing low-income folks a service by fighting new housing development. But the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, a coalition of more than 200 affordable housing organizations and advocates, disagrees. They’re supporting the bill that Colter and Fox are attacking.”
Them’s Fighting Words
Comments are closed.
Their just luddites. They don’t want to give up their single family homes close to the center of the city.
If Fox is out there, and I bet he is, I want to hear his counter argument to both of these posts. John?
All light rail does is make it easy for criminal ghetto blacks to get around town and rob people.
I know a bunch of wimpy PC liberals in Seattle won’t like hearing this but it is the cold hard solid truth. Heed the words of this prophecy – I am right and you are wrong.
how about a link to the editorial in question so people can form their own opinions.
You may now present a hyperlink showing that the suburbs produce more “negative impact” per square mile then a dense urb.
You can’t.
The problem with Fox is that for him, very-low income housing needs and interests trump all other concerns.
The reason Fox doesn’t want density is simply because it means old, cheap (low rent, and very low-income) housing doesn’t get torn down to create new, more expensive (high rent, middle to high-income) housing. That’s it. That’s all Fox cares about. He use any argument or sophistry to try to maintain very low-income housing around.
The problem is that this dream of Fox’s is totally unsustainable in an attractive city like Seattle that is continually growing in population. Fox’s logic only carries in cities that have zero or negative population growth. No matter how much anyone hates or doesn’t want Seattle to grow… it’s just not a Rust Belt City.
Mainstream affordable housing groups understand this. They don’t care so much what the density is (sometimes they do want/need it boosted to create larger buildings) so long as there is some kind of land/space/incentive/funding available/etc to build or preserve affordable housing, from very low-income (Fox’s flock) to “workforce” moderate income.
Right now there are tons of houses, good houses, on sale for $1000 (one THOUSAND dollars) in areas like Cleveland, OH.
Seattle is still in the top 5 most expensive real estate markets in the world.
The easiest solution for the homeless: BY THEM HOMES…as in, take a $1000 and buy them homes in real estate markets that are affordable.
Oh god, I hate when I type too fast and I look like a retard.
“He use any argument or sophistry to try to maintain very low-income housing around.”
Should read “He’ll use any argument or sophistry to try to maintain currently existing very low-income housing.”
And I should have said, “…it’s just not a Rust Belt City. New people will move to the City and new and additional housing will need to accommodate them (unless we want to sprawl straight up to the Cascades). Instead of denying this reality, Fox should work to make sure that there is creation of new very low-income housing.”
I guess what it comes down to is that Fox has totally given up on us ever being able to create enough new very low-income housing to meet the need, so he just focuses on what we’ve got left. That might work for a while… but it’s just not sustainable. Thankfully, mainstream affordable housing groups are working toward that goal. While they’re willing to admit that they can’t do it themselves, they’re pushing hard to enlist for-profits by having the City create incentives for them. (It’s long and it’s slow and people get angry seeing developers incentivized to create what looks like expensive “affordable” housing, but it’s the right fight.)
Great post by Hey Wait @6:
I at least give John Fox credit for caring about poor people in Seattle. And you know, if he had his way, there would be more and more and more poor people in Seattle.
Hey Wait @6: The problem with Fox is that for him, very-low income housing needs and interests trump all other concerns.
What’s so galling is that John Fox feels compelled to make a climate change!? argument against density. And we all know that John Fox absolutely could not care less about climate change. The problem is, it’s such an enormous and abstract and complex issue, anyone skilled in sophistry can distort climate change into any argument they want.
I don’t understand how NOT building denser housing helps anything though.
If the argument is that the property values around transit are going to go up – well, that will be true regardless of the density present.
If the only thing that’s around those stations is single-family homes, well, those will be sold, remodeled, and resold, for much more.
If they’re torn down and replaced by denser arrangements – apartment buildings – zoning requires a certain portion of those new apartments be rented at below-market rates.
So you’d end up with more, and protected, low-income housing, near mass transit.
I don’t see how this is bad. I’m really disappointed at Fox and Friends here.
I always hated Colter and Fox on the X-Files and I hate them even more now…
Fox definitely cares about low-income people — but he seems to care even more about single-family housing. The guy has been making up numbers for years, and I’m glad to see it’s finally catching up to him. His arguments would not benefit very low-income people in the least, though it might mean a property-value jackpot for folks in single-family neighborhoods. That’s hardly a sensible way to make policy
Dismiss displacement in southeast Seattle because the eventual replacement buildings available to different people in future promise to be greener in comparison to a hypothetical suburban development? No twisted logic or sophistry apparent there at all.
Hey Wait @ 6 and 8 – Thank you for least fairly portraying John Fox’s position, even if you don’t agree with it, something that a lot of people seem completely unable to do.
John has successfully gotten passed amendments to policies that displace existing very low income housing to at least require one-for-one replacement of the existing demolished housing at rent levels similar to what is being removed…so even if you think development that results in the demo of existing very low-income housing is good or inevitable, if one gives a damn about the very poor – there ARE policies that can be put in place to mitigate that impact.
That part of their argument about the burbs being eco-friendly may be far-fetched. But no one has so far put forward a compelling answer to the concerns they raise about the displacement caused by “density” incentives for the construction of above-market rate units.
there is a big difference between so-called affordable housing and low-income housing. building tiny apartments that rent at a rate suitable for people making 80% of mean or median income doesn’t help those at 50% and down the road we will have crappy tiny old apartments. I’d rather see no “affordable” and open season on building more expensive larger, better units than the current schemes.
LH posting and you not returning my calls, harrumph.
@9 for the win, even if most people who aren’t moderately well off have to live in Kent.
Galt,
you really think that single family houses next to light rail stations will be desired? maybe a couple blocks away but not across the street.
No has anyone explained in any of these rebuttals that that I’ve read:
a) Fox and Colter are making an untrue statement when they write that “it will take 15 to 30 years before the embodied energy lost in destroying the original structure is paid off by the efficiency of the new one” nor
b) If it is a true statement that it doesn’t matter because even given a new building taking 15-30 years to “earn back” the embodied energy lost in tearing down the old building the TOD impact compares favorably to the total impact of the no TOD scenario.
Hugeasscity simply says – without explaining how the demolition impact factors into the equation – that “since that other location would invariably be less urban and lower density, it *is all but certain* that TOD would have a lower net environmental impact.”
And I’m asking, because I really want to understand…
McG – who me, not returning what calls of yours? I’m all caught up on returning calls on the issues that I staff. Perhaps your transportation policy related call has been referred to another staffer in this office. : ) But hell, if you’re gonna call me out like this on SLOG, I suppose I better call you back anyhoo just to keep the peace!
written before your last post LH
LH now you’re really starting to piss me off. The gurus of the new urbanism aren’t big on actual facts or reality. Enviros supported the tunnel last time and some will support this time if enough buses are added. even though it uses the most energy to build and operate.
clearly putting people closer to where they work and play will make them have lower GH footprints and building capacity anywhere will require concrete, fuel for machines, copper, etc. etc. all of which has a footprint. so it most likely is better to tear down and rebuild in places that are near stations but that’s not the real issue. the real issue is creating urban settings that remind people of their european vacations – places where there are streetcars have better pastries and foie gras, right.
we will never be nyc or paris or london.
3/4 miles of viaduct free downtown accessible waterfront is better than funding low cost housing – because we don’t want low cost housing. we really don’t want low-income housing. its better than building alt energy because it will reconnect us to a waterfront that we were never connected to before.
I can give a shit about displacement. I live right smack in the middle of the areas to be rezoned. If a developer wants to pay a fair price for my spread I will gladly get displaced.
Oh and fuck the poor. There, I said it. Sorry your initiative, education, and goal setting only got you as far as a 12 dollar an hour job at kinkos by age 40. But that’s not my problem. Have fun in Sea Tac.
Well at least @23 is honest. Since no politician would say something so condescending and elitist, all we get are hypocritical statements about how everybody wins, because gentrification is a dirty word and “affordable condos” keep rents low for everyone and we need more above-market, “workforce” housing.
Clearing out the poor and rezoning for mega-density will produce higher individual property values and much higher cumulative assessed value, in units peopled by residents who pay higher property taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, utility taxes, and carry lower costs for police protection and human services. It’s a win-win for the city.
That environmentalists are leading the charge is beautiful beyond measure. No nasty developer involvement at all. Beautiful. Bravo!
@23,
Behold the greenwashed modern face of classic Reagan-era Yuppie values (or lack thereof).
@25,
FTW. But let’s also not forget that all of that leads to higher rents – new supply notwithstanding – or that urban environmentalists also apparently believe that there is no such thing as an urban environment.
@23,
Another thing – you might want to consider being a bit nicer to the disposable people who do the grunt work selling you your coffee, getting you your office supplies, or mowing your yard, as you may well be find yourself competing with them for a gig after your job has been outsourced.
@27 My job cannot be outsourced. I can honestly say that my job will never be affected by recession or even depression. So suck it.
That said, I was only half serious in my post. But really, why should I lose any sleep over people being pushed out of their neighborhood as the neighborhood changes. Cant afford the rent? Then move to a place when you can afford the rent. Big fucking deal. I did the same thing when i lived in Long Island City in 2003. The neighborhood was changing, rents went up, and I was forced out of my sweet ass 2 story brownstone right next to the courthouse square station on the 7 line.