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.
Zoning capacity is a public resource, and up zones have consequences, like the need for more transit (and open space, and police, fire dpt, etc.). And yes, blocking views and light is an adverse impact. (As is the suburban ugliness of most of the new buildings going up in SLU.) The fact is, Seattle has lots of unused housing and commercial and industrial capacity without a single rezone. Why don't you cover that issue (GMA, growth targets, unused capacity, who owns what and gets what from specific decisions) instead of uncritically flogging for density?
Arena: Same story; Seattle gives away public resources and conducts the environmental review, if ever, after the fact. There is pending litigation over this ass-backwards process by the City. If Hansen doesn't want a public siting review process under SEPA, he shouldn't ask for public assets. It's quite possible Seattle will get away with this travesty because they have done so numerous times as SEPA and GMA is eroded into meaningless by developers and their municipal handmaidens.
The Stranger should not go along with such uncritical decision making; you argue for more accountability in most areas, but when it comes to your god density, no decision is wrong no matter how poor and non-transparent the process, or how many impacts have not been evaluated, let alone mitigated.
The city already has an arena deal. No Mayorial candidate alone is going to undo it.
Go back to Field of Schemes and bitch about Virginia Beach some more.
I could care less about them, but Virginia Beach's arena money-backers are sitting down and talking with NBA teams so they've got that leg up.
I've thought a lot about this and placing bikes on inside lanes down the center of the road would work. Yes, there would have to be right-turn bike crossways but that could be worked out. Think about it before tossing it as just another crazy idea. I've thought of many anti-arguments myself but I've worked out a solution for each one. We need creative thinking in transportation.
When it comes to opining about zoning, how to develop, and what a city is REALLY like, the last place to go to is bunch of uninformed self-important white kids from Seattle...
Anyway: my vote is going to the candidate who can convince me that they are going to make the most sustained changes to the police department.
Sounds like, when push comes to shove, no, you don't believe in density. But sure, good luck creating a market for smaller apartments without taller buildings.
SECB on Seattle subway: Use the corridors already identified in the city's Transit Master Plan, and then pay Sound Transit to build the thing. (We don't have to "go it alone" or create a new transit agency to do this.)
No, that is going it alone. And how much faster would that move things anyway? Last I checked, there's still the possibility of Sound Transit 3 going to the ballot in 2016, and Sound Transit is going to need a big, capital-intensive project (i.e. Seattle subway) to balance out the suburban rail projects it's considering. And I recall from reading Seattle Transit Blog, from which Seattle Subway emerged, that their focus has been on ST3.
However, electing councilmembers by geographical district is a terrible idea, and I refuse to vote for any candidate who supports it.
I hold this position for two reasons.
First, geographical districts can be gerrymandered. Even in the absence of malice, you have to break up the districts somewhere. People on one side of Broadway may have a different representative than people on the other side. Is that a good way to make sure that Capitol Hill's interests are heard? Or is that a good way to promote artificial divisions?
Second, and much more importantly, our city faces many problems which simply can't be solved parochially. For example, every neighborhood has an interest in promoting development... somewhere else. The costs of development are very targeted, while the benefits (though greater) are much more diffuse. With an at-large council, you can make deals, where development is allowed in one part of the city in exchange for restrictions somewhere else. But when members are elected by district, each member vows to vote against any development in their district, meaning that nothing gets built anywhere.
There's a much better way to ensure that diverse interests get heard, which is proportional representation. Candidates run as 9-member ranked slates, rather than individually. If Slate A gets 66% of the vote and Slate B gets 33%, then the first six A candidates and the first three B candidates get elected. This system maximizes the chance that each resident will get to be represented by someone they voted for, which is a much more laudable goal than allowing residents to be represented by someone who shares their ZIP code.
all sarcasm aside, I love living here and the issues are not easy, I guess for my vote this thread would be more like an actual conversation on the streets of Seattle if every other post in it was from someone else asking for money.
hey, can I get a dollar?
If you really want city council by district, and claim to be Seattle's Only Newspaper then get your asses out of Pike/Pine and recognize that the "shitty" bus service doesn't magically start in the suburbs, but as soon as you get walking distance away from downtown or the hill or Udub.
Want to build a bunch of cheap apartments in "Seattle", great, there is a bunch of property in north Seattle that is much less expensive because it doesn't have a view of SLU, the problem is the lack of sidewalks and the shitty bus service, we get told and taxed as if we live in "Seattle" but that's about it.
If you density transit urbanists were serious the you would look at where the cars in Seattle sleep at night (per capita), overlay the shitty bus service map, and have a fucking epiphany.
The only people that need rail are the people that already have sidewalks and busses.
Take a look at the Streets for All failed electoral map of Seattle, pull you heads out of you asses, and promote a comprehensive multimodal set of real solutions for all of Seattls, and not just bikes and rails. Seriously.
Next time you think about Nirthgate realize that there is 40 more city blocks further north that us the city of Seattle, too, 40 fucking blocks.
It seems that with the huge problems of un(derrr)employment and student underachievement, as well as the strong tradition of tutoring in improving academic performance, a massive hiring of enough workers who pass simple standardized tests (since that's the measure for students nowadays) for 20 hours a week at 12-14 bucks an hour or w/e to give each public high school student 2 hours of weekly tutoring might be inexpensive relative to common school expenditures. is this true?