Maybe some of them were drunk.

The Stranger talking about NIMBYs is always beyond hilarious. There are no bigger NIMBYs in all of Creation than the folks at The Stranger regarding Capitol Hill.

Steven, you had a CHANCE to endorse a city-wide council candidate who would actually increase density. You chose the person - who you aptly compare to Sawant - you in action does NOT want to increase density. Sawant has an opportunity to increase density in her district via the city wide upzone EIS, but she won't. Because she, like Grant, knows her coalition would fall apart without NIMBYs.

Here's a fact: every single NIMBY group endorsed, supports, and is giving money to Jon Grant. Why? Is it because groups like Fair Growth care so much about the plight of the working class? No, it's because Grant won't say he'll vote for rezoning single family areas.

You just care less about urbanism and density than you care about "sticking it to the corporations and developers", and that's fine, I guess: it's a value choice. I value actually getting shit done than electing some left-nimby troll who will stall our city's development.

I'll leave you with this: I went to the open house last night in Fremont for A/ADUs and changing the comp plans for single family zones. I asked around a dozen of the NIMBYs there who they're planning on voting for, and all of them - without fail - said one name.

Jon Grant.

@3: YIMBY's should check this out - What’s In My Backyard?

The article primarily addresses YIMBYism in Boston, but the points are worth noting for Seattle. Some highlights:

While people rarely self-identify as NIMBYs, YIMBYs are loud and proud. They strongly support increasing overall housing stock, arguing that the affordability crisis is a product of restricted development in growing urban centers. When confronted by arguments that market-rate development drives up local housing costs and leads to displacement, they respond that any opposition to development (or developer profit) is NIMBYism that ultimately opposes the interests of low-income people and contributes to displacement.

[...]

First, by positioning themselves as NIMBYs’ virtuous foils, YIMBYs paint all critics of development as entitled, self-interested actors who have no concern for the greater good — ignoring the fact that it is quite possible to be skeptical of a development for reasons other than personal greed.

Developers play a huge role in shaping urban economies. Yet they’re accountable to their investors, not to the communities where they build. It’s not unreasonable for tenants being driven out by rising rents to challenge projects that benefit from the value of the neighborhood they once called home. In many of these projects, “market-rate” rents are far out of reach for the surrounding neighbors. For example, in Boston’s Egleston Square, organizers are challenging a neighborhood development plan that includes apartments priced at $2,500-3,000 a month, in an area where half of the current residents make less than $35,000 per year.

[...]

The second, and more important, problem with YIMBYism is that it is based on an embrace of the speculative housing market. It assumes that the cause of the housing crisis is a dearth of supply, and that the market will address the crisis if restrictions are lifted.

This may be true on a regional scale. But even then, the resulting drop in rents and home prices are not enough to bring housing within reach for most working people. In order for expanded supply to solve the crisis, land prices would have to be much lower than they are now, or the state would have to restrict the price of land. In the current market, land is extremely valuable in cities like Boston and San Francisco. That means the purchase price is high, and since construction costs are also high, rents must be through-the-roof if developers want to recoup their investment and make a profit.

[...]

By advancing a narrative that privileges development (and developer profits) over non-market strategies and tenant power, YIMBYs provide cover and political support for politicians who want to be seen as progressive but don’t want to confront developers.

The SECB made the right choice.

@4: that Jacobin article is trash. Pure, unadulterated garbage. And anyone who references it clearly has no idea what YIMBY is.

Let's take a look at the SECB's Dissent article. These were people in the room with the SECB, and say the signature issue was Grant's housing-killing 25% affordability mandate. This well thought out piece conveys clearly: " Delays are what NIMBYs want and delays are exactly what Grant—who also opposes rezoning and upzoning—is promising to give them"

It's possible part of the SECB is so tone deaf they could not only hear these arguments, but then went on to write the article I'm commenting in without realizing they are endorsing a NIMBY. But I like to believe they're smarter than that.

It seems like you're kinda-sorta stumbling in the direction of figuring out you screwed the pooch on this one, but you're in too deep to admit it.

This is what YIMBYs, and their apologists who infest these comment threads, are: The alt-right darlings of the real estate industry.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/40509…

People are homeless i.e. without decent shelter because they cannot afford housing.

My income does not = your rent. It is less than your rent.

Jon Grant is pointing out the problem and acting on it in this corrupt system of casino economics. Money is your god developers and we can see that.

#8 thank you for the information.

So if you paint Mosqueda as a compromiser, why do you then admit Grant's 25% affordability thing is nothing more than a negotiation tactic? You can't have both, Stranger.

YIMBY is a basic premise: new housing is needed. There are libertarian ("market-rate housing will solve everything!") YIMBYs, there are socialist YIMBYs ("build public housing!"), and everything in-between. Classifying them all as market urbanists (as the jacobin and truthout articles do) is dumb. A huge portion of Seattle's YIMBYs are socialists. And most YIMBYs know that both subsidized AND market rate housing is needed.

The reason YIMBYs hate Grant's 25% MHA is because it will stop all development (we saw this happen in SF). That's because of the funding mechanism. Tons of YIMBYs support different forms of funding to build that same affordable housing - whether that comes from levies, income taxes, etc.

I don't see Grant showing up to help get affordable housing built. The YIMBYs are; whether that's naturally affordable housing in Wallingford (backyard cottages, which Grant supporters held a mock funeral to mark the potential lib), a mix of housing in Queen Anne (the Shah building, which would've included a mix of retail, market rate, and subsidized housing), or the 100% subsidized (including homeless housing) Fort Lawton project in Magnolia.

The root of our housing crisis is a housing shortage, and increasing the supply of *all* housing types needs to be front and center in any realistic solutions.

Er, I meant "backyard cottages, which Grant supporters held a mock funeral to mark the potential loosening of zoning laws around them". The city wants to encourage people to build more backyard cottages, and the NIMBYs are holding mock funerals for the "death of Seattle democracy".

@11 So if you paint Mosqueda as a compromiser, why do you then admit Grant's 25% affordability thing is nothing more than a negotiation tactic? You can't have both, Stranger.

This double standard really does make clear how much they're flailing to retroactively justify their mistake. And the notion that asking for something implausible increases your negotiating position is straight out of the idiot's guide to negotiation. (Recall also "Obama could have had a much bigger stimulus bill if only he'd started out demanding 3 trillion or something!") Try offering 2 grand at the Porsche dealership and see where it gets you.

Next thing you know they'll be earnestly explaining how electing Grant "moves the Overton window to the left." I really do yearn for the days when the SECB had a functioning bullshit detector.

@3: Your broad brush paints a false picture. The people you talked to are voting for Grant because he supports policies and actions that will actually produce housing. Check out the people who support the specific solutions you can find here: http://www.seattlefairgrowth.org/solutio… —
Frank Chopp
Ishbel Dickens
Sarajane Siegfriedt
Lisa Herbold
David Bloom
Sharon Lee
Bill Kirlin-Hackett
Jonathan Grant
John V. Gox
Alice Woldt
Gary Clark
Neil Powers
Alex Becker
Darel Grothaus
Hailey Badger
Kira Zylstra
Ted Virdone
Their affiliations at the time of publication (March 2016) are listed at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/…

@12 and 13: Your characterization is not accurate; the neighborhood peoples' complaint is about their lack of any real voice in where and how density is increased, not whether. They were/are mourning the loss of neighborhood planning. Please stop misstating what other people are saying.

Is it just me, or does everyone by osmosis know the meaning of the term, "Blethenian?" The only other usage I see via google is in a Saint Paul Globe 1892 article on page three.

Look, I just think Jon Grant has more integrity and intellectual honesty than the other candidate who was (reportedly) and deeply involved in the creation of these health care exchanges. Believe it or not - you don't need Trump to throw people to their deaths in Seattle. Corruption and abuse of human rights reign supreme under something Teresa Mosqueda takes credit for.

Jon Grant, on the other, supports single payer - and NO, he doesn't support "reaching consensus" which is the same tired excuse used by most corporate Democrats who have been screwing Americans already on these issues for decades.

We don't need to make careers for more of them.

Vote for Jon, in this poster's opinion. Down with the corrupt Health Care Authority! Down with the Exchanges! Down with Democratic Party "liberal" CORRUPT-as hell cronyism which Mosqueda is being fast-tracked.

What a disappointment that Berniecrat House Rep Pramilla Jaymapal endorsed. And we're really waiting to see the labor unions stop stabbing people in the back on single payer. AFL-CIO no exception. You guys are going downhill fast every time you say yes, and then bail, when you get a deal for your own people ONLY.

Why am I mad? Because I know someone who may die, thanks to people in Seattle like Mosqueda and the bogus corrupt health care exchanges.

@16:

Please, dear DSA troll, learn how government works before posting, and hopefully before voting.

So, am I right, this whole tempest is about Grant's discontent with the grand bargain's low requirements? MHA is that fragile, that one council member who thinks the requirements ought to be higher, might spoil the whole party, and the Stranger needs to stick with the party line or be painted as "NIMBY" (as usual in apparent ignorance of its meaning)?

#17 We know how government works corruptly and for the wealthy.

HALA sucks.