What the fuck is a YIMBY?

How is a "spooky" mailer?

The amount of parking going into some of these new places near the light rail stations is ridiculous (nearing a 1:1 ratio in some cases). How does that help those who don't need parking but want to live near light rail?

@3, how does parking being provided prevent you from living near light rail?

@4, because mandated parking minimums necessarily increases building costs which necessarily increases rents, which necessarily makes living near our billion dollar investment less viable for many.

Yes, I'm sure a few extra parking spots is really much, much worse than having people be completely unable to live inside the City of Seattle.

@4. According to a recent UCLA study, the average cost to build an above-ground parking spot in Seattle is $25,000. Underground is $35,000. http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HighCost.pdf

Current Seattle code requires 1.25 parking spaces for each and every housing unit (if the number of units exceeds 60). If the design constraint requires underground parking, you're now talking an additional $43,750 per apartment.

If the developer was expecting to keep the building and to hopefully make a 15-year return on their investment in the property, that requirement adds roughly $243 a month to the cost of rent. Requiring less on-site parking, especially in areas served by ample public transit, reduces the cost of the project and the rents.

@1: "Yes In My BackYard." As opposed to a NIMBY.

Sorry, I meant @2. Comment 1 is totally MIA.

People who call for developer impact fees to pay for their fair share of the costs of growth on our transportation network, utilities, parks and public schools are not NIMBYs. They're opponents of corporate welfare.

People who express concerns about traffic in an already super congested neighborhood are not NIMBYs. Gridlock is arguably a public health issue.

The U District has already reached density that is 122% of the Seattle Comp Plan 2024 target. People who wonder if any of the current residents will be able to afford to keep living in the U District--including UW students who simply need basic low cost housing over their heads in order to avoid saddling themselves with even more debt than they're already taking on--aren't NIMBYs. They simply have reasonable concerns about their economic future.

People who call bullshit on HALA's lack of an anti-displacement strategy, the hundreds of affordable apartments that will be destroyed and the threat to dozens if not more than 100 small businesses and non-profits who won't be able to afford ground floor retail in towers up to 320 feet tall aren't NIMBYs.

People who are concerned about loss of tree cover and the paltry amount of existing park land in the U District aren't NIMBYs. This is also a public health issue, because green space or lack thereof has a strong impact on mental health and a sense of well being.

People who question whether any of the massive growth anticipated to result from this upzone will help rather than simply increase the U District's already serious homeless problem aren't NIMBYs. They are realists.

It will be interesting to see how many YIMBYs turn up tonight, but I suspect they'll be far outnumbered by housing activists and UW residents who are worried about being steamrolled by the City of Seattle and UW's plans for densities that will be double those in South Lake Union, and we all know how *affordable* SLU has become.

@11 People who express concerns about traffic in an already super congested neighborhood are not NIMBYs. Gridlock is arguably a public health issue.


Claiming to care about gridlock while fighting for less housing to be built in the U-District is beyond absurd. It's already the #2 jobs/school destination in the state, and in a few years it'll have a frequent 8-10 minute transit link to #1, the CBD. The people who would like to live there are moving to the region regardless, but if new housing isn't built to accommodate them they'll either a) outbid others for the current housing stock, forcing those displaced by scarcity to places where they'll need to drive more, adding more congestion (including, yes, driving to school/work they used to walk to) or b) live farther away, and drive more, adding to congestion.

If congestion is your concern, letting as many people as possible people live next to work/school and U-District station should be your top priority.

@10: "parking requirements in the U-District (and I think in most other urban centers) have already essentially been eliminated"

Yes, but developers are still building lots of parking. For example, a 6-story structure will be going up at 43rd and Roosevelt (just north of Hardwick's), just blocks from the UW station. Supposedly the building will have 110 apartments and parking for 118 vehicles. That's just wacky.

Likewise, the 7-story commercial building being planned for 45th and 12th, a block from the UW station, will have three stories of underground parking so that everyone working in those offices can drive to work instead of taking light rail.

@11 - "People who call bullshit on HALA's lack of an anti-displacement strategy ... aren't NIMBYs."

You appear to have missed:

R.3 - Renew and Increase the Seattle Housing Levy. R-6 - Expand the State Housing Trust Fund. R.8 - Establish a Supportive Housing Medicaid Benefit. P.1 - Pursue Opportunities to Acquire and Finance Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing. P.2 - Make Strategic Investments to Minimize Displacement. P.3 - Pursue a Preservation Property Tax Exemption. P.3 - Pursue a Preservation Property Tax Exemption. P.4 - Engage Private Owners with New Financing Tools and Technical Assistance. P.5 - Increase Impact of Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO). T-10 - Expand Source of Income Protection

Half the plan is anti-displacement strategies. But it's a lot easier to spread misinformation because you'd prefer that the benefits of a once-in-a-generation investment in a light rail station be preserved for existing single-family home owners.

The rich people don't just go away if you bury your head in the sand and preserve your cities in amber. They simply outbid you for the existing housing, causing the displacement you fear. The only people that benefit from that status quo are single-family homeowners like John Fox, who limit housing capacity and watch their assessed value go up.

@11 - Also, I can guarantee your tree cover won't offset the "public health" impact of thousands of people commuting an hour each way from fucking Mill Creek to go to the U District.

@10 "parking requirements in the U-District (and I think in most other urban centers) have already essentially been eliminated"

Care to source that claim? Because it's simply wrong. I work at a local architecture firm. We just finished up a new project in the U-District, along NE 45th and I guarantee you we had to put in a substantial amount of underground parking. We also just finished a 110 unit condo complex in Ballard (another urban center), it was required to have 120-underground parking stalls . . .

If you don't believe me, take a look into Seattle's building code for yourself: Chart B, Section 23.54.015 "Parking for Residential Uses"

H: "Lots containing 2-10 dwelling units: 1.1 spaces for each. 11-30 dwelling units: 1.15 spaces for each. 31-60 dwelling units: 1.2 spaces for each. 60+ units, 1.25 spaces per unit.

M. Multifamily structures within the University of Washington Parking impact area: "For units with less than two bedrooms, as required in row H. 1.5 spaces per unit with 2 or more bedrooms, plus .25 spaces for bedroom for units with 3 or more bedrooms."

http://bestcitycodes.wikispaces.com/file…

The only major projects I know of that are getting parking waivers are the aPodment style micro-apartments.

Just a note- often developers will submit plans with the maximum number of parking spots they believe they could need to make a project pencil because they can't get more once their project goes through design review + permitting. However, they can reduce the number of spots and that's often what happens.

As for specific projects mention near the future U District light rail station with parking, there are many more that have little to none. The project that just started at 50th and the Ave: 111 units, 41 parking; 3 projects around Roosevelt and 50th: 176 units, 51 parking; 50th and Brooklyn: 60 units, 0 parking; 47th and Brooklyn: 74 units, 37 parking; 43rd and 11th: 99 units, 0 parking; 41st and Brooklyn: 84 units, 0 parking; 2 projects on 52nd and the Ave: 129 units, 22 parking.

Anti-growthers? More pro-developer, urbanist psychobabble! You do realize that you're lining the pockets of the 1% and making the lower and middle class poorer than they already are by supporting this nonsense, don't you?

I think restricting supply of housing well below demand screws renters and newcomers, and lines the pockets of incumbent landlords and homeowners who bought at the right time, and promotes planet-cooking sprawl, forcing newcomers into brutal commutes against their will. I comment accordingly.

Can someone let me know about how to get in on this developer cash I keep getting accused of taking? I could use some extra beer money...

The author, and I use that term that term loosely, seems to have a lot of catch phrases, and hashtags, and names to call. However, the aforementioned is fine if you have the substance and factual data to back it up, which is not the case here. I'll see your "anti-growther" catch phrase with a catch phrase of millennial-idiot-redneck-ignorant-logic. You're the Sarah Palin of Urbanists.

@14 you say, "Half the plan is anti-displacement strategies..." but none of those strategies have been defined and FUNDED, even though ongoing, daily construction is producing THOUSANDS of new apartments per year for at least the past three years, and this pace of construction is expected to continue at least through 2019, assuming the economy doesn't collapse again between now and then. When will meaningful preservation and/or 1:1 replacement of lost affordable housing ever occur?

Some of the policies you cite, e.g., "Renew and Increase the Seattle Housing Levy" are HALA taking credit for other independent programs dependent on action by the voters, or even the State Legislature. The Housing Levy will preserve only a few hundred units of existing affordable housing, not making much of a dent in the hundreds of units that likely to be destroyed in this single upzone. A a city rep stated last night that only 60 to 100 affordable units would be lost as a result of the Tech Hub, but this number seems disingenuous given that hundreds of units of affordable housing units exist in the U District including the much abhorred, but very student friendly dorm like group houses, some of which house more than a dozen people in tiny rooms with shared bathrooms, livingrooms and kitchens). The city has been very secretive about its estimates of the numbers and locations of affordable housing units citywide. They keep promising to release this information, but HALA is a fast moving train, and it's unclear which will arrive first: a meaningful and continually updated database of affordable housing units lost and gained, or HALA, many of whose moving parts are still enclosed in a black box.

Other elements you cite, e.g., "Pursue Opportunities to Acquire and Finance Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing; Make Strategic Investments to Minimize Displacement; Engage Private Owners with New Financing Tools and Technical Assistance; Pursue a Preservation Property Tax Exemption." are squishy, and who can say what they even, and whether they will ever be adopted other than as feel good slogans that don't stack up in the face of actual, relentless teardowns followed by replacement of lost affordable housing with much more expensive market rate housing.

The "Increase Impact of Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO)" may not even be legal if the Carl Hagland Law fails to pass, or is so watered down it becomes meaningless. This proposed ordinance will be discussed tomorrow in Housing Committee meeting, where it will be heavily attacked by housing free marketeers including corporate landlords and Roger Valdez, who have condemned this proposed law as a form of rent control. Valdez has argued that slumlords must be able to raise the rent to unlimited levels in order to abate conditions such as rats, roaches, black mold, broken appliances and dangerous electrical code violations that tenants complain about. It is of course very convenient for them jack up the rent for apartments with abhorrent conditions as a highly effective way inducing tenants to move out without having to bother with formal evictions. When tenants have been disposed of in this way, landlords can gut out these crappy apartments and remodel them to market rate standards so they can triple the rent, a practice that stands on its head the ridiculous fiction of "filtering" as a means of increasing the affordable housing supply.

It was heartening to see CM Lisa Herbold at the meeting last night. She, CM Sawant, are totally on top of the housing affordably issue. She said several important things: We need to add to the supply of housing, we need to provide affordable housing and we need protect tenants. She also said, density shouldn't trump everything else, and she admitted that HALA actually disincentivizes developers from providing onside affordable housing.

As currently envisioned, a massively upzoned, upscaled neighborhood like the UW Tech Hub will become far less affordable and less diverse than the funky U District of today. Low income earners, people of color, and many small businesses (some of which are owned by POC) will be displaced, and offsite affordable housing for them will be delayed for years and occur miles away in neighborhoods with cheaper land, and where, ironically there is a greater concentration of existing affordable housing, some of which will be eliminated by the replacement affordable housing.

So Lisa was there expressing her interest and concerns, but Rob Johnson was MIA. Hopefully he won't become the lazy ass Bruce Harrell of the north. Bruce has honestly admitted he doesn't like meetings. At a public meeting in South Seattle concerning the new Othellow Tent City, when asked what he thought about the tent city, he said, (paraphrasing here a bit) "I can't say anything because I know there are a lot of people in the neighborhood who aren't comfortable with this." He probably doesn't want slumlords to be made uncomfortable either, given that he's a wealthy landlord himself.

It will be interesting to see if affordable housing advocates and people who want to preserve a modicum of neighborhood character can stop or even slow down a juggernaut like the U District upzone. To do so, a majority of the City Council will have to grow a spine.