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.
Not making over $55K a year? The move to the suburbs, Seattle doesn't want you living here anymore.
Consider what a developer does when he needs to set aside a percentage of his units for section 8. He'll up the rent on everything else. So while you think you're creating affordable housing, you're just raising the rent for everyone else.
From what I have read and heard from members of CD LURC, mentioned in this article is that the property owner mentioned in this article, would not guarantee low income housing of either type.
it would all be great basis for a satirical movie but such folks actually get to vote in real elections.
The best thing to have happen is for the property owners to get their rezone, sell to a competent developer and let them build a good project which contributes to the neighborhood. Then TAX the then more valuable property and use it to support housing for poor disabled old people (not college kids who want to live ob Capital Hill).
Sheesh. Makes me sick to think of the waste of energy to even thinking of fighting what could be a fine project. Shape it, yes! but try to stop it? Bullshit.
IF someone wants to buy some property who the fuck cares what race or ethnicity they are.
23rd and Union is no longer the center of African-american culture in seattle, the community and culture is not thriving there.
Many communities have thrived there in the past (not only African American) and others will thrive there in the future. And so it goes....
You're right about it being a First World Problem, given that the concept of "suburbia" doesn't really exist in most Third World Countries.
Its not a land tax, it is a property tax. If your next door neighbor has a bigger house he pays more.
I know Bangasser has gotten a bit of a bad rap as some sort of slum lord over the years, and he probably could have done a bit more as far as lighting/security/etc. to at least attempt to cut down on the street disorder that collects there late at night. But on the other hand I feel for him, as he's in a little bit of a rock and hard place - he seems genuinely interested in making sure that local residents have a say in what happens to that street corner, but entering into the sort of binding agreements that people are suggesting could really hamstring future development and make it difficult to transfer the property to the next owner. I'm sure he could have sold to the highest bidder a long time ago and be drinking mai tais on a beach somewhere, but he's at least been attempting to keep a dialogue open with the community.
When I moved into the neighborhood, it was a shuttered gas station. Then it turned into a hole in the ground.
Then the hole in the ground turned into a massive enviromental cleanup project for years upon years, because the half-century-old gas station had trashed the land so badly the very dirt itself was toxic.
Then it finally sat as a vacant, fenced lot for a few more years, until my rent got high and I had to move to Burien (where our school levies fail and our electeds say improving bus service is "not a priority").
So the "black folks" should only aspire to ridiculously priced middle class white neighborhoods? Someone really should tell them that.
Here's the deal: If you can sell your house on a tiny lot that you bought for 24K in 1972 for half a million or so, places like Renton look mighty attractive: Big lots, newer construction, better schools, much more affordable housing. That's doubly true if your church has moved there and friends are living there.
As for the neighborhood's history, the CD has always been a jumping off point. People lived there until something better came along. The Jews cleared out of there as soon as they were allowed to buy property elsewhere. Neighborhoods change - even the ID is getting more Occidental. I know Asians who grew up on Beacon Hill who wouldn't dream of living here. And you sure don't see the Scandanavians crying over Ballard (After all, they'll always have Poulsbo).
Yes, some people are getting priced out, and that is bad. I was priced out of Pike/Pine to Beacon Hill, but I landed on my feet. (yes, I know, check my privilege, etc) but there's also the people who are profiting nicely from the improving real estate values - something that is too often left out in the often cartoonish depiction of changing neighborhoods.
If this city wasn't so zoned so SF dominant, there would be more opportunity to build smaller scale retail that's needed for these threatened businesses. As it stands, there's no other place to put mixed-use buildings.
Property is our God.
Care to cite a single example of a European city, big or small, that is as pervasively un-dense as Seattle.
Not being the most sprawling city in the United States still puts us at about the bottom of any list of contiguous urbanized areas elsewhere in the developed world. Transit math is real.
I'm sorry that the view of the world from the porch of your ugly Fremont bungalow is so limited.
Long commutes. Inefficient goods distribution geometry. Detached housing. The oodles of "open space" for which you clamor.
Your urban-phobic "activism" is the problem.
Put your red markers away, as long as the cultural preference is for urban, walkable, neighborhoods, gentrification will continue. Those with money will get their houses - either in the city, or in the burbs. Do you want them to build more in the burbs?
where is it OK to build?
Funny, because when I, a black man, go to Ezells in Central of visit friends that live there, the white locals give me the "scary negro! Better clench my purse/cross the street/turn the other direction".
And Im not the only person who has experienced this.
City Population Density per sq.mi
London 8,416,535 13,870
Munich 1,407,836 12,000
Moscow 11,503,501 11,865
Zurich 383,708 11,000
Wein 1,794,770 10,366
Liverpool 466,415 10,070
Berlin 3,517,424 10,000
Marseille 850,636 9,200
Budapest 1,744,665 8,610
Glasgow 596,550 8,542
Seattle 650,000 7,738
Bern 128,848 6,500
Prague 1,243,201 6,475
Krakow 760,700 6,028
Rome 2,900,000 5,847
Graz 269,997 5,500
If/when we get to a million, we'll be more dense than Moscow (11,900). And every one of those cities, down to the smallest, has a better transit system than Seattle. By far.
You still don't know me or what I do, or the kind of house I live in. And if you come anywhere near me, I'll get a restraining order; you are not welcome here.
Yes, Toby, when you compare the municipality of Seattle proper to consolidated European metropolitan governments that include large swaths of rural land outside of the populated urbanized areas, you can look cockeyed at the statistics and pretend that Seattle is denser than Prague.
But if you spent all of a day on the ground in Prague itself, you would realize that every place covered by its urban transport system is about an order of magnitude denser than your Mayberry-Fremont fantasy of what mass-transit-amenable cities look like.
I cannot wait until you and your Lesser Seattle associates -- so excruciatingly self-righteous in your hypocrisy and willful ignorance -- slip into the dustbin of irrelevance.