At a meeting of the City Council’s Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee on Feb. 27, chaired by Council President Sara Nelson, council members voted 3-2 to advance a bill allowing housing in a special zoning district encompassing the city’s two sports stadiums and the area just south. The zone is called the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District (STAOD).
In a presentation to the committee on Jan. 24, Council President Sara Nelson unveiled a proposed “Maker’s District,” consisting of a mix of housing, retail, and light industrial projects, with a promise to add as many as 990 units of housing, 50 percent of them affordable. Okay, cool, yeah, we need more housing, especially affordable housing. Sounds good.
Not to everyone.
At a hastily organized press conference right before yesterday’s vote, Port Commissioner Toshiko Hasegawa, flanked by members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 19, all holding “WE HAD A DEAL” signs, excoriated the proposal.
“Our city has significant needs that we must work together to address, but this is not the solution,” Hasegawa said. “It’s reckless urban planning.”
After her, Curt Nuccitelli, the owner of trucking company Spirit Transport Systems, laid into the plan, followed by John Wolfe, the CEO of the NW Seaport Alliance. Councilmembers Dan Strauss and Bob Kettle, the latter of whom was in attendance, have also cried foul. If the bill does pass full council, the Port has suggested it might sue to block it.
Why are these people so passionately opposed to this plan? It adds housing, it adds breweries, it looks cool—what’s not to love? Well, besides the fact that all of these people oppose anything that could impede commerce at the Port, where they make their money, there’s actually a lot at stake here in terms of housing equity and who gets access to power.
Let’s start with that bit about access to power. As far as the Port and its associated acts see it, the issue of whether to allow housing in the STAOD was settled in 2023 when Mayor Bruce Harrell pushed through his updated maritime-industrial zoning package. Now, suddenly, Nelson has reintroduced the idea, and has done so in a kind of sneaky way by immediately referring it to her own committee rather than Strauss’ Land Use Committee.
“It could not be more clear that this bill should go to the Land Use Committee,” Strauss said in a phone interview. “This is an abnormal practice that I’ve never seen before. It’s very troubling.”
It’s also very sudden, Hasegawa said, and no one knows exactly why Nelson is bringing it up now. However, as Hasegawa pointed out over and over and over again yesterday, this deal looks real nice for Seattle-born, San Francisco-based billionaire hedge fund manager Chris Hansen, who bought up a bunch of land in the STAOD as part of his failed campaign to #BringBackOurSonics.
Hansen has been sitting on most of that land since 2016 when a key vote regarding the vacation of Occidental Ave stymied what was to be a new arena for a new Seattle Supersonics team. The buildings his WSA Properties holding company owns are home to a smattering of tenants, including Blazing Bagels, Pius Kitchen and Bath, and Tony T’s Sports Lounge. The Maker’s District, Hasegawa suggested in a post-presser interview, is Nelson’s way of helping Hansen get out from under a bad investment, all while handing out a major paycheck to developers and construction companies.
“People deserve consistent, thoughtful public policy that doesn’t make them sacrifice their time, effort and energy to make their voices heard when an out-of-state billionaire wants a new property,” she said during her remarks, before confirming she was referring to Hansen in a subsequent interview.
Now, even if it is a somewhat blatant case of favor-trading, what if team Maker’s District’s gain is also our gain? That is, of course, the agonizing truth about the YIMBY movement: It is often bankrolled by big tech and wealthy developers, but is also in favor of adding more housing during a housing crisis. Sometimes the worst guy (or councilmember, in this case) you know makes a great point.
That’s not what’s happening here, according to Hasegawa. Instead, during the Port’s press conference, she compared citing affordable housing in SoDo to redlining. How is that? Well, she argued, any housing in SoDo would be subject to serious environmental hazards, similar to those plaguing neighborhoods that mix industrial and residential zoning. In places like South Park, to name one of the most notable examples, average life expectancy is 13 years less than the city at large. SoDo in particular, she noted, suffers from horrible noise pollution, air pollution, and extremely dangerous infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. Putting housing there, especially affordable housing, is akin to recreating all the environmental racism we’ve perpetrated against other neighborhoods.
“To say that we’re earmarking [this land] for affordable housing almost makes it worse,” Hasegawa said.
Instead of putting it in the margins, we should be building affordable housing where it’s already nice to live, she contended. Proponents — who include the Mariners and the Housing Development Consortium, along with both Pioneer Square and the CID’s neighborhood organizations, by the way — say it’s actually pretty close to downtown, plus there’s light rail right nearby.
Nelson responded to the Port’s criticisms of her legislation in a Feb. 27 blog that read, “More housing is needed in Seattle – especially workforce housing near light rail stations and jobs … Bringing all these pieces together will transform an area long associated with empty streets, vacant buildings, and public safety challenges while providing a much-needed solution to Seattle’s housing crisis. And we know we can do it without causing additional adverse impacts on nearby industrial activities.”
Another hot button issue here is truck access. This particular bill would create a special exception for the STAOD allowing residential projects within 200 feet of a “Major Truck Street,” which is not the case for any other Urban Industrial housing in the city. In her Jan. 24 presentation, Nelson argued that there were already plenty of Major Truck Streets with housing on them, Aurora Ave. and Rainier Ave. S among them, where trucks had quite literally kept on trucking. Maybe not the best examples, given what routinely happens to cyclists and pedestrians on those streets, but that wasn’t all her ammo.
The Eastern Washington agriculture industry also showed up in droves to argue against the bill, citing their need to ship fruit, grain, and all the other fat-of-the-land out of our port quickly and efficiently. In her slides, Nelson argued that none of the main routes used by agricultural producers would be affected, showing a map with highlighted routes bypassing the proposed Maker’s District. Another arrow in her quiver is the fact that a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on “Seattle Industrial & Maritime Strategy,” completed in 2022 by the Office of Planning and Community Development, said there would be no net impact to traffic in the area from allowing housing in the STAOD. However, Hasegawa was again not buying it.
Once you zone that for housing, then you’re going to have to start building in the neighborhood amenities that [residents] deserve,” Hasegawa said. “They’re going to need safety to be able to safely cross the freight corridor. It would look like incorporating bike lanes. It would look like incorporating grocery stores or an elementary school, or what have you. But once you start putting people in there, the city will be obligated to start responding [and] giving them the things that they need to be safe.”
Speaking of safety, Nelson’s other big pitch was that a big mixed-use housing and light industrial development would improve public safety in an area with a pretty bad recent track record on crime. No one really had an issue with that, and Jane Jacobs was probably smiling down on the dias from wherever urbanists go when they die (Holland, presumably).
All that said, what do you need to do about this thing? What can you do?
Nothing, really. Before the bill goes to full council in March, you’ll have one more opportunity to comment on it, where you can tell the full nine to kill it and put more density into rich North Seattle neighborhoods instead— or build it, if that’s your bag. Just remember that this bill’s primary sponsor is up for reelection soon, and that there’s a lot to be gleaned here about who she’s legislating on behalf of.
TL;DR Sara Nelson is a bad person thus this must be a bad proposal.
It’s idiotic that we maintain competing taxpayer subsided port authorities – every Puget Sound based port should be under one authority and the associated land should be best used for the benefit of the people (even if some rich guy may make money off the deal – welcome to America).
If tourists somehow survive the “toxic” environment (along with the existing multi million dollar condos), I’m pretty sure it’s safe enough for whoever has the privilege of landing a spot.
“ where you can tell the full nine to kill it and put more density into rich North Seattle neighborhoods instead”
That statement write there encapsulates Seattle progressive urbanism the best. It’s not enough to build housing. We need to punish “rich” neighborhoods to do it.
@2 “punish” how exactly? Urbanists just want more housing in places people want to live, which seems pretty rational.
If this was being proposed by Alexis Mercedes Rinck or Tammy Morales or Kshama Sawant there would be 47 Slog posts about how the proposal was self-evidently correct and anyone who opposed it was an evil Trump Republican.
The Stranger, year after year after year: “HOUSING CRISIS! HOUSING CRISIS!! HOUSING CRISIS!!1!”
Sara Nelson: We could build some more affordable housing, right near some working-class job–
The Stranger: BAD WOMAN HATES PORTS! BAD WOMAN TAKES BRIBES!! BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ONLY IN EXPENSIVE PLACES WITH LONG COMMUTES TO JOBS!!1!
Also, what @1-2 and @4 said.
Isn’t it possible that bike and pedestrian infrastructure would actually improve if we built housing (and retail) in this area?
Industrial lands are different from neighborhoods – they aren’t made for housing. The erosion of lands around Ports is how Ports are shutdown. SODO is for industry. Every other part of the city is for housing. Pretty simple, support our maritime industry, preserve industrial lands.
@3 it will also cost the most to build there and be the most expensive. So if you want more housing quickly you build where there is room and land is cheaper. Or you can complain about the “rich” people up north, spend years fighting to change all the zoning in the city, spend millions of dollars to build there and improve the infrastructure to support it. What is the best use of time and money?
“where you can tell the full nine to kill it and put more density into rich North Seattle neighborhoods instead”
1975 called. They want their cliche back.
SODO is built on fill, people are always talking about how it will “liquify” when the big one hits. Are we sure this is a good idea (oh, and happy day after Nisqually Earthquake Day)
@8 I think we should be building more housing in all parts of the city, but given the circumstances (especially skirting the Land Use Committee) I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether this is a serious housing solution or just a handout to a rich guy.
@8 I think we should be building more housing in all parts of the city, but given the footprint and skirting the Land Use Committee I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask whether this is a serious housing solution or just a handout to a rich guy.
@10 fair enough but urbanists continually talk about the housing crisis yet focus on building in areas that are not ready to support development or are more costly to build in. It undermines their argument that this is a housing crisis when they dedicate do much resources focused on things that are more costly and time consuming. Fix the immediate problem than worry about building apartments in Broadmoor.
@11 the immediate problem is zoning, which is what urbanists are focused on. Currently it is not legal to build apartments in most of the city, so any question of cost effectiveness is entirely beside the point. All urbanists are trying to do is give people the option, should they choose, to build apartments in Broadmoor whereas the other side wants the government to prohibit it. I’d think a free market enthusiast like yourself would be firmly on the side of the urbanists on this one.
@12 Zoning is not the immediate problem. There are plenty of areas in the city along transit corridors that are already upzoned where you can build thousands of units. Fill those in and then accept as well that there are areas of the city that should be only SFH. There is a reason while those areas are desirable. People don’t want to live on top of each other nor share walls with their neighbor. Many of these areas are also not connected to transit corridors so increasing density will lead to traffic and parking issues. Again focus on where you can get the most bang for the buck if this truly is a crisis.
@13 “Zoning is not the immediate problem. There are plenty of areas in the city along transit corridors that are already upzoned where you can build thousands of units.”
So I take it you’re opposed to Nelson’s effort to fast track rezone this part of the city as entirely unnecessary? You must agree it’s an obvious handout to a developer given there are so many other parts of the city already ripe for redevelopment. You must be pretty frustrated about this cynical cronyism from Nelson, right?
“accept as well that there are areas of the city that should be only SFH. There is a reason while those areas are desirable. People don’t want to live on top of each other nor share walls with their neighbor.”
So you believe the government should continue to restrict the ability of landowners to do as they wish with their property in those areas? The free market should be subservient to the greater societal good?
“So you believe the government should continue to restrict the ability of landowners to do as they wish with their property in those areas? The free market should be subservient to the greater societal good?“
Sounds good to me. Look, I’d love to live in Blue Ridge or North Admiral, but I can’t afford it. So I settled for Beacon Hill.
@14 “So you believe the government should continue to restrict the ability of landowners to do as they wish with their property in those areas?”
that’s not what’s happening. In this case gov is forcing density on communities that don’t necessarily want it. Read HB 1110. In fact Inslee through a hissy fit last year when kenmore turned down a Plymouth housing development. That is all tangential to the point through. If this is a crisis build where you can immediately and then worry about other areas of the city.
@16 that’s exactly what’s happening. The only thing HB 1110 “forces” is municipalities to stop artificially limiting what landowners can do with their property. You are advocating for centrally-planned statist restrictions on property rights.
The density should be added outside the city. The affordable housing should be added outside the city, where land prices are… affordable. It’s really stupid for the city to build low income housing in high priced areas. Especially when the majority of city/state funding cones from property taxes. That kills your tax base. And your tax base is how you fund these things in the first place.
BTW, it’s not a housing crisis. It’s an unproductive people crisis.
@18 or better yet don’t even build housing just camps. We can concentrate all the “unproductive people” in camps far away from our precious high priced urban land. That can be reserved for productive people like retired SFH owners and those who inherited fortunes. Very notcrazy idea thank you.
Either this land is not needed for maritime/industrial use or Port Commissioner Toshiko Hasegawa and her staff are doing a very bad job implementing it as such. Which is it?
This SoDo “industrial” land is unproductive. This land is located near the heart of the city, has been zoned maritime/industrial for decades, get’s no shortage of attention, yet fails to create meaningful family-wage job as intended. It’s a wasteland. The intent of the zoning was not to let the land lay fallow for decades and decades. The intent of the zoning was to create family wage jobs. Many jobs paying significantly more than minimum wage that can benefit from the proximity to the city, trains, and the boats. The land outlined as the Maker District does nothing, kudos to the city for re-visiting the zoning.
Regarding the July 2023 legislation (We had a Deal????), an Urbanist article (https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/07/27/harrell-signs-industrial-land-reform-into-law/) states “Councilmember Dan Strauss, who chairs the land use committee, said he was open to revisiting the decision at a later date, but didn’t want to tank the legislation by adding the Makers District provision and upsetting key stakeholders.” For all this city council’s faults and failures, good on them for making this happen! It is time to revisit this legislation. Revisit we must. Industrial and maritime zoned land has a purpose – its not for free parking, its not for childcare, its not for endless seas of mini-storage – its to create family-wage jobs. When the family wage jobs fail to appear, its time to revisit and re-zone to a better, more productive use.
@13: “There are plenty of areas in the city along transit corridors that are already upzoned where you can build thousands of units. Fill those in…”
This is what the Stranger, and sympathetic commenters here, should be demanding to address the “housing crisis” they’re always talking about. As you note, their real agenda is to eliminate the SFH neighborhoods they despise for ideological reasons. Years ago, I commented on this, using this quote from long-time Stranger columnist Geov Parrish:
“…a coalition of developers and climate change-obsessed environmentalists … concentrated development near arterials but left many single-family home neighborhoods nearly untouched.”
That’s right, Geov complained the new housing units were going into the most environmentally-friendly places! And why was he upset at building housing near jobs and transit? Because it didn’t increase density in remote SFH neighborhoods!
Ideology always wins with these people. Then they rage when Seattle’s liberal, educated electorate rejects their ideas.
@21 “This is what the Stranger, and sympathetic commenters here, should be demanding to address the “housing crisis” they’re always talking about.”
News outlets and commenters can’t “demand” builders build, but we can “demand” our elected officials enact sensible zoning reform. Like, for example not gutting proposals from subject matter experts like Harrell did this update round:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/04/16/planners-proposed-bigger-upzones-before-harrells-team-intervened-records-show/
You’d think an “educated electorate” would prefer to follow the expert recommendations but it turns out those opposed to zoning reforms are the actual ideologues, as CM Moore’s simultaneously uninformed and condescending comments on the comp plan made clear:
https://publicola.com/2025/01/08/im-not-prepared-to-sacrifice-my-neighborhood-councilmember-cathy-moore-takes-hard-line-against-apartments/
And given you put scare quotes around ‘housing crisis’ it’s abundantly clear you are in the ideologue camp.
@22: ‘News outlets and commenters can’t “demand” builders build…’
Of course you can. You demand things all of the time. This headline post most certainly did not demand additional construction in the already-upzoned areas, and Geov’s quote from long ago explains why. The Stranger shouts “housing crisis” only to advance an anti-SFH agenda. If housing sufficient to alleviate the housing crisis was built elsewhere, the Stranger would no longer have “housing crisis” to shout when attacking SFH neighborhoods. Never let a good crisis go to waste!
‘You’d think an “educated electorate” would prefer to follow the expert recommendations…’
Because experts are always right, all of the time, eh? Or maybe the citizens, through their elected representatives, should have input? (Oh, wait, we saw what you think of that…)
@23 “Because experts are always right, all of the time, eh? Or maybe the citizens, through their elected representatives, should have input?”
Bobby Jr is that you?
@7: “The erosion of lands around Ports is how Ports are shutdown.”
So, everything is working to plan. We’ve lost much of the maritime business in Fremont and a good chunk of it in Ballard. And most of it along the Seattle waterfront (The grain elevators are still hanging on. For now.) Lost it to rich software businesses, rich condo dwellers and rich yachters.
Fisherman’s Terminal was nearly lost to the ascot-wearing class were it not for the Alaska fleet owners noticing that chandlerys were being sneaked out in exchange for fancy restaurants, cafes and art galleries. The fleet owners screamed their heads off and stopped the steal. For now.
@1: “every Puget Sound based port should be under one authority”
I think we tried that one with Tacoma a while back. We’ll take all the billionaires. You can have the dirty freighters. We’ll split the profits. Tacoma laughed so hard, I think they wet their collective pants.
Look. If Seattle doesn’t want a marine industry, fine. Just be honest about it. Hand the waterfront over to the developers.
I guess @25 is unaware that the ports of Tacoma and Seattle formed a public development authority in 2015 resulting in the formation of The Northwest Seaport Alliance (going strong since August 4, 2015). Ideally the alliance would include all Puget Sound ports but that’s unlikely (and unfortunately the ports both maintain separate commissions – it would save money if these were combined).
It would also be nice to see a level of automation on par with Asian ports (even just automating the movement of containers between ports and rail lines would be an environmental win).
@24: Bobby Jr. was elected to what office, exactly?
Seriously, from the point of view of actually providing affordable housing, building affordable housing in the SFH neighborhoods is the worst option — and the one the self-described ‘urbanists’ always go to first, for the reason Geov revealed. (His comment about climate change seems to have aged even worse.) A single new apartment tower in Belltown could provide as much new housing in a single go as decades of waiting for up-zoned housing to be built in Maple Leaf. And Belltown has room for more parking (under the new building) and access to just about everything on foot. There is currently not even a proposal to build grade-separated mass transit into SFH neighborhoods, so building more there simply means more surface traffic. Up-zoning SFH is a ‘solution’ which will create as many (or more) problems than it solves. (But that’s ok, because it serves the needs of the Stranger’s ideology, not the needs of actual human beings.)