I believe it's Junction Neighborhood Organization (JuNO).
Can someone please come buy-out all the vacant lots / massive waste of land used car dealerships in Lake City? That area is just prime for redevelopment for some affordable housing, You're not going to get any of these types NIMBY characters bitching about it either (unless you start creeping TOO far off Lake City Way). We'd gladly welcome it.
@1 Yes, thank you.
Here's a look at your future:…
@2 Car lots are too valuable to a city in our sales tax dependent system. Car lots and dealerships are often a significant percentage of the tax base, often as much as 60%
Whine whine whine. Grow up. It's not 1955 any more. A real city looks like a real city, not a suburb. The single family detached home model is obsolete and was always a bad idea.
Re: your postscript, we also reported the appeal plan on Friday.…

What was sent Friday (surely you got it too?) was a media advisory, mostly to announce today's news conference. Perhaps what the coalition considers "premature" was the fact that the Friday advisory, beyond that announcement, contained the entire text of what they distributed at this afternoon's event as a news release. Would have been more helpful if the text of the appeal had been available instead or supplementarily (so far four individual/group appeals and several placeholder numbers are in the Hearing Examiner's system but not the coalition's document - still waiting for it as of 5:44 pm).
Nice! I own two houses in Seattle and those neighborhood groups make sure their value will keep rising and I'll get richer!
Nice! I own two houses in Seattle and those 'neighborhood groups' make sure their value will keep rising and I'll get richer!
The root problem is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that, by inviting appeals like this, undermines its own mandate to protect the environment:…
I was wondering what was wrong around here. Turns out we have "scale". Hope there's a cure for that.
As much as I love my city, I am starting to think our city gov't is full of shit, and not working on behalf of us. Clearly, if they worked in the best interest of the city, they would TELL developers, "you MUST add in affordable units to ANY structure you develop.
Not this BS "money in a fund" shit!!
Am I the only one that can see this is nothing but a quick path to segregation??
If the affordable units are not spread out through the cities new construction, where do you suppose all this "affordable low income" shit will get built??? All in the same historically low income areas, that's where.
Way to show you care Seattle!!! Fucking spare me, I'm not that fucking stupid.
@2 Amen. I live in Meadowbrook, which is a sub-neighborhood of Lake City, and I heartily agree that there is much room for development along Lake City Way, mostly between 85th and 95th. I would love to see the huge, barren area that currently is taken up by the Pandora strip club and the Shanty Tavern replaced with housing.
The City's heavy PR campaign trying to convince us that HALA is an actual solution to affordable housing is tiring. I'm glad they're appealing. HALA is a horrible policy.
The Coalition didn't send out our press release early. We announced a press conference would be held on Monday. It was Berkman who jumped the gun of a press advisory dated Monday, misled the coalition of his intent, wrote a broader story than an advance piece, misstated the group's position as being against growth and didn't bother to attend to press conference and interview any of the two dozen group representatives to find out what we are actually for, like neighborhood planning. Being against growth would be like being against gravity.
But you are appealing something Scaryjane. By definition that means against. What does it matter what you are for? For could be anything, zero percent of which happens because you win your appeal. "What you are for" is an irrelevant beard meant to soften your group's image. So stop crying "fake media" and have the balls to say fuck you this doesn't fit our desires.
@15- Opposing development in one particular area might be explained by believing that growth would be better done in another spot. But putting together a coalition that spans the entire city and is against more density can ONLY be described as anti-growth. Would your coalition agree to allowing duplexes/triplexes in neighborhoods that are now single family only? How about apartments? Smaller lot sizes? Anything at all that allows for more people to move in?
Oh good, more housing for poor people built right onto busy 4-lane highways so there is no peace and quiet and their kids get to breathe pollution from idling traffic. Great idea! Don't put commercial uses on busy thoroughfares, that makes too much sense! (Also, the strip on LCW between 85th & 95th is currently being radically transformed by the planned community taking shape in the former University Park mobile home property. The land adjacent to Pandora's etc. is wetlands that was originally bulldozed to expand LCW so there may be restrictions on further building on that unstable fill dirt.)
@18, you may have it precisely backwards. There are areas within the city that want upzones - I believe I've heard Herbold say that about Delridge in her district, for example. The city's planning department, in an idealized view of the situation, exists to sort these things out and rezone where needed. For another example, the recent (2016?) upzone in the Ballard core was as a neighborhood specific planning exercise that as far as I know pretty well received.

But under the current regime, "planning" just means blanket upzones, plus an inside-out notion of the "urban village" concept brought in a generation ago as a way to concentrate development and infrastructure together, but now again only mapped areas for more blanket upzones.

Is that "growth"? No. Upzones are not growth, they're a way to spread the growth out. Seattle has been building at a phenomenal, record pace, for years, 2017 especially. There are cranes all over, projects all over. You'd have to be blind to think there isn't any growth, and SCALE hasn't made any move to interfere with that. It's really blind optimism to think that rezones would somehow radically change a building frenzy that is already near double any previous year's record. The capital, labor, materials etc to support that are a fantasy. MHA is really all about developer profit vs. Seattle's quality of life - that's the other side of the "grand bargain", for which we're supposed to get some paltry and late funding for subsidized housing.
@19 - are the "poor people" really getting a reprieve from any of that in any of the other proposed up-zones? Isn't this just about getting home for people in general, not a specific one of your liking? Also I'm well aware of what is happening to the old trailer park - I'm talking about the MASS of giant lots further North on Lake City Way (that could be built easily to accommodate green spaces in the middle of them etc.). Many of these lots sit completely empty with no cars for sale for months on end. The Mini-Dealership, has actually bought residential homes behind it to park their inventory (which is not zoned for business). Just saying, the whole stretch of Lake City Way is one of the biggest mis-managed wastes of space in the city.
@19 Commercial uses are fine, but a bar that’s open one night a week and takes up a giant lot is a waste.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.