Seattle zoning is back in the headlines, just as campaigning heats up for next month’s primary City Council election.
“Get rid of single-family zoning in Seattle, housing task force says in draft report,” the headline in question, is on Danny Westneat’s column posted today.
“We can still be a city for everyone, but only if we give up our outdated ideal of every family living in their own home on a 5,000 square foot lot,” a draft letter from the committee co-chairs reads….
The committee voted 19-3 to recommend replacing single-family zoning with a “lower density residential zone” that would allow duplexes, triplexes, rooming houses and more backyard cottages and mother-in-law units in areas now dominated by single houses on lots with a yard.
The draft report was not supposed to be public – yet – and the task force is not happy with Westneat and The Seattle Times.
“My co-chair and I are very disappointed that you and The Seattle Times have chosen to undermine the efforts of the HALA, a citizen advisory group, by prematurely releasing an unapproved draft of our report,” (Faith) Pettis and David Werthheimer, the other co-chair, emailed in a statement.
I’m electing to release it anyway because I have always felt these advisory committees on crucial topics facing the city should be open to the public and not conducted in secret.
If neighborhoods are given more political power by our new system of electing council members by district, this report won’t go unnoticed. In comments on the column: “Poll the city council candidates. Find out if they would support abolishing s.f.d. neighborhoods, or if they would reject any such efforts. Let voters know.”
The draft report is here. Final recommendations from the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Advisory Committee are due to the mayor on Monday.
Does our hill have an official name? If no, may I suggest “San Juan Hill” since Roosevelt charges up both sides?
Don, you clearly didn’t read the proposal (or even the summary). Nowhere did it say highrise.
Also what is it that you hate about bike lanes? I used it this morning and it was great–cars could easily pass me without getting slowed down.
My family has been on the same lot in Maple Leaf for 89 years, I’ve seen a lot of changes, lately
the bicycle lanes on Roosevelt upset me, and now they want to do away with single family zoning. Let me tell you that will a fight to the finish if they want to high rises everywhere.
LOL, Roosevelt “Ave”
Oh I forgot we shouldn’t have yards because of yard work and we have to bring all our kids to the parks. Not to mention trying to get across Roosevelt to even get to the park. Oh Roosevelt ave, more concerned with bike lanes than making it safe for families to cross the street. This won’t pass. If you don’t like yardwork get a condo, plenty for sale.
There is no serious argument given that we need to give up our neighborhood of family sized homes to augment the proposed influx of newcomers. They can live downtown, where their jobs are at.
Once they dedicate themselves to wanting to live here then they can figure it out and find a neighborhood to buy a home.
Tim, awesome post with the links you provided. My own lot is 5,400 sq. ft. while I think this lot was 6,300 before it was subdivided. Amazing what 900 sq. ft. makes possible. Lots get even smaller the closer to downtown you get so this may have limited effect. Good news for the house in the back though is they get to live in a great neighborhood.
You get a dog and plant vegetables.
What happens when your kids grow up?
Sounds like Mike is a commie. Yeah take from them to make for you Works both ways. Speaking of work, the people in this community have worked hard to get a yard they can play with their children in . Density equals crime. Only you want that Mike, well the others that cant stand to see people reap the benefits of their hard work and not stand to see it.
So a committee of third world dictators, who destroyed their own countries with this communist garbage, now want to do turn OUR country into a third wold dictatorship? However hard they push, Americans will push back twice as hard.
housing for me, but not for thee!
keep fighting the good fight, all! really making us bigots proud!
Just park it on I-5. Everyone else does.
What I use my large lot for is growing food. I have a large vegetable garden and 6 fruit trees. Tiny lots equal less opportunity for urban farms. Agree cars, but not driving them, can be a good source of revenue but reading the draft proposal there would be no where left to park them.
@Concerned Citizen, #3
Not really sure if/why that was directed at me… (I was only asking about the “over capacity” roads).
But I have good news! I can provide before and after photos of what it could (and does!) look like. See 1238 NE 102nd:
In 2014
In 2011
I don’t know the specifics, but in late 2013 the lot was split and a second dwelling was added in what was otherwise a useless patch of grass.
Same sort of thing happened at 9607 Roosevelt (check the before/after street view).
To me, a yard is the worst part of home ownership. My idea of a fun Saturday is doing just about anything but cutting grass and pulling weeds. Especially front yards; they’re always devoid of activities save for someone pruning the vegetation.
Also, on #4 don’t forget that ST and Metro collect sales tax. I’m not sure what the split is; I imagine ST gets more revenue from the sales taxes than MVET. But that’s just a guess.
With all the people moving here, if the city doesn’t get a lot denser the cost of buying/renting will keep shooting up, and then what?
Nice areas won’t get crummy rental units, they’ll get nice ones because people will pay more to live there. I buy into most of the report’s recommendations but wonder how many of those the council will adopt.
There are a few things to consider with this and a lot of things in the future:
1) District elections will have a significant impact on issues like this.
2) It is true there is room for more housing under the current zoning but the only problem is it is in parts of Seattle no one wants to live in. If they did, then developers would be building there. Think Duwamish.
3) Tim, I have stood on my porch in my single-family neighborhood and tried to imagine more density. It is probably my lack of imagination but I cannot see it.
4) Sue, the Puget Sound region needs you to own a car so transit agencies like Sound Transit can collect the MVET. Also Seattle and the State needs the gas tax. They just want you to hit that fine line of not actually driving the thing but not being willing to go car free.
Oh and BTW the screen counts for Northgate Way and 5th were from Jan 2012.. Gee, like no development has happened since then. Part of the reason I don’t put a lot of faith in traffic studies. I’ve lived 5 blocks from there for 30 years Just wait until or if the Mullallys ever make good on their plans. WDOT will be weighing in on that one and it will be crazy money in traffic mitigation.
Thing is a rooming house here, a triplex there won’t be required to do traffic mitigation and it all adds up. Then when the big developer comes in they get stuck holding the bag and they won’t be happy about it. I’m not against density, it just has to make sense.
@ Tim. I will need to do more research but the latest traffic analysis was done in March in conjunction with the proposed development on 8th It is called the GRE Northgate Apt Traffic Study and I can’t find a way to link it for the life of me, sorry, but it is public. True there are very few intersection that are at F as in totally fail but some are only a project or two away from that. The one I just mentioned will need to spend $100,000. for traffic and that isn’t even in one of the more critical intersections. Good for you for asking for source. That is usually my line 😉
I’m all for density and seeing this pass, house prices and rental rates have gotten out of hand, we need supply to meet the demand. And density in our neighborhoods will help neighborhood businesses grow and thrive.
Source?
Did a quick read of the draft. First thing that came to mind is the housing aspect can not and should not be considered without any attempt to determine if the infrastructure is there to support it. Yup, horrified here. Most streets in this area are already at capacity. To think everyone will take transit and not have a car is naïve. And what about other required resources as schools, library, community centers, fire depts, water etc etc. They MUST come first. This is a requirement. Once all this is in place exactly how much land have you freed up? Housing is in no way a stand alone concept. This is nuts.
This is terrifying to me. Looking at the folks on this committee I feel completely unrepresented and had no idea this committee existed. Rooming houses were JUST abolished in single family zones and this would undo all that for just one example. I need to read this but I am horrified
There isn’t “vast excclusionary zoning”. There is room for hundreds of thousands of new homes under current zoning. However, what this is really about is making it even cheaper for developers to throw up cheap multi-family housing, make money, then leave town and the consequences to the real residents.
it should be noted that it seeks to *diversify* the vast, wasteful single family zone – rather than abolish it.
it’s not like upzoning to duplexes, rowhouses, etc will completely change entire neighborhoods overnight, or even over the next 20 years.
let’s drop the hyperbole and think about the families than would like to live here, but can’t – mainly because of the vast, exclusionary zoning.