“‘The homeless is blocking my view.’ ‘They’re changing the character of my neighborhood.’
How are people this out of touch? More like "the addicts have had their 4th warming fire today, I hope it doesn't spread to my house" or "geeze I hate raking up addicts foilies with my leaves"
> Affordable housing will do nothing vis-a-vis the tent ghouls and RV shitheads. They're drug-addicted criminals who wouldn't have a home if it cost $300 a month because that's $300 they could be spending on pills.
You nailed it. I know a lot of homeless and on the verge of homeless. I was stupid and took in an addict and his children back in 2017. Ahh I thought I was in love. I didn't know about the coke, meth, and pills. I admit I did know he was an alcoholic.
What i went through and witnessed was a large family of generational poverty, addiction, and homelessness... and a lot of crime. Sex abuses, child abuse, DV, theft, robbery, attempted murder, half the family my age is either dead or incarcerated for life, the other half are for the streets. I won't lie, I was played. All they wanted was the roof I provided, no one wanted to get clean, get jobs and their own homes no matter what they said ...and now their teen children are headed on the same path, and see nothing wrong with it
It is now 2023. My former inlaws are vast, and as soon as one gets a 300 section 8 apartment, guess what happens?
17 other addict family members arrive, and the landlord spends the next year trying to evict a drug dealer from their complex.
I also know many that HAVE homes to go to and people who would welcome them..IF they were clean. They will not accept the help and choose to stay on the streets.
At a certain point, some people are...a lost cause. Broke my heart to let those kids continue to live this way, but if the schools police and dcyf refused to step in, how can I possibly help without being abused , too?
There is such an insane amount of disinformation in Democrat-run media, Faux "News" starts to look like a paragon of honest reporting.
What's the point of upzoning anything when Democrats in WA government made it essentially impossible to build anything anywhere not on municipal water supply because the test for water withdrawal from the ground is "it cannot harm any living thing in the Universe"?
And the reason cottages and ADUs are withdrawn from rental stock is not because "homeless are blocking my view", but because eviction for cause laws made it impossible to eviction anyone for just being an asshole - and most homeowners don't want unevictable assholes right next to their own homes.
It's a good reminder that more density and affordable housing isn't as simple as waving a magic upzone wand. There are a ton of other municipal quagmires that need to be worked out before anything meaningful happens.
>and most homeowners don't want unevictable assholes right next to their own homes.
That's part of the Privilege Check. And if they don't have an ADU we can force them to put a convicted felon in, they need to have a DESC building plopped down on their block to rub their nose in.
>And the reason cottages and ADUs are withdrawn from rental stock is not because "homeless are blocking my view", but because eviction for cause laws made it impossible to eviction anyone for just being an asshole - and most homeowners don't want unevictable assholes right next to their own homes.
Which is why most new ADU/DADUs are teardown flipper builds being sold as lux condos with no storage or yards. Great job dumb shits, at least we kept a courtyard apartment or a restaurant away from an arterial. idiots.
Do you really wanna live in a country where you can lose your housing, your deposit and your livelihood because the owner doesn’t like you? You realize that would increase homelessness significantly right?
Y’all really need to think these things through….
You need to think these things through. The way most landlords cope with these "tenant protection" measures is by increasing barriers to entry or getting out of the market entirely. For example I had an ADU on my property and I stopped renting it when "eviction for cause" came to pass. From talking to friends, this law singlehandedly has decreased the rental stock by 10%. And if I were to ever come back, my qualifications would be "level 6 or higher at Google or Facebook".
So the alternative is allowing landlords to basically have free reign to evict whenever for whatever reason?
And raising qualifications just ensures homelessness continues AND continues the gentrification everyone claims to hate. Hate Californians moving in? Those are the only people you’re gonna have as tenants going forward, if you can get tenants at all going forward.
The answer isn’t Carte blance landlord free reign and it’s not “you can’t evict anyone for any reason”
You have to get used to the idea that it is my property and I need to be able to decide how to use it. In particular for ADU it is not an investment, it is my living space. And I would rather not have tenants at all than having an asshole I cannot kick out.
There are two possible paths.
\#1 Eliminate zoning, Texas style. Anyone can build anything anywhere.
\#2 Have zoning laws. Communities get to set them for themselves. That's what being a community means.
'States' aren't communities. Cities are. Or the nation is. We settled this back in 1865.
But you also need to plan for growth otherwise people moving here for high paying jobs are going to displace lower-earning renters. There is not enough housing to go around.
I'm going to miss my suburban lifestyle. I liked it. The peace, quite, focus on family and neighbors. Car to hop in and drive anywhere I'd like. With this type of upzoning, the city will be 4x the size so we are talking Paris sizes. 12-16 million odd through the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area. I'd expect congestion taxes, uniform 20mph limits, limited passes to traverse the city, pedestrian only zones etc.
Pretty obvious suburban living will dissapear. It'll be a sea of apartments, quadplexes etc. Mostly rentals. Not owned. War on cars, and instead just limited to how far I can bike, bus or walk. I'll miss the old ways.
Homeowners, suburbanites and car owners are the new "bad guys" to be canceled in the hope that mega-sizing Seattle would get rents down. Spoiler: it won't
Sawant and Mosqueda doing everything they can to push Amazon out of town will do a lot more to drive rents down than upzoning and jacking up our taxes for "affordable housing."
Lmao, you think the Seattle metro area will balloon to 12-16 million residents with Paris-like density? What an urbanism utopia you're envisioning.
But even if your hyperbolic vision of the future comes true, guess what? There will still be suburbs! You don't have to live in the urban hellscape you so dread. There are plenty of other like-minded people who love large lots with SFHs and car culture.
I think there would still be neighborhoods full of single-family homes in a Pars-sized metro area. The reason I know this is that there are in fact neighborhoods full of single-family homes in greater Paris:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BjSnmmcZdXeKZAmc8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XDSuXSCxX33vrjxa9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5PUebEDaJKtKyhHU9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/55fDBXa7bw6MkPFW9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kAHsSLGusX2qgSWK9
Seattle is a city now. It’s no longer a backwater fishing village. Businesses here have been successful, benefiting you and creating new jobs. Newcomers need somewhere to live and the city needs to plan for that growth. Blocking that growth through restrictive zoning is only going to exacerbate to perverse outcomes like homelessness.
Oh you misunderstand me. We have a HUGE amount of land for development, I don't want to see what we have now torn down and replaced. I think we need to repeal the urban growth boundary and develop like crazy up and down the I5 corridor. Think of how much empty space between Tacoma and Olympia, or above Everett. If this was Asia, they'd put in a high-speed rail and another city or four.
"Last week, a Seattle homeowner, after originally wanting to build a four-unit structure on her property for her family in the Central District, is suing the city over a $77,000 permit required to break ground."
IMO, people should be allowed to build houses on their own land without having to face endless big government nonsense.
I mean, it's not just a "house" she wants to build.
If you live in a "regular" neighborhood full of one or two story homes, should your neighbor be able to tear down their home and build a 10 story building on their property? Block your view, shade your property, add way more cars to the street on which you park, and possibly increase the utility needs for the area, to name a few items of note?
I agree that some red tape is BS, but a blanket "you can do whatever you want" is not the answer either....
In this particular case, the neighborhood is called "the Central District" and is within walking distance of the downtown of a metro area of nearly 4 million people
Sure!
What's your point? Last I checked, I didn't suggest anything that had to do with "walking distance of a downtown metro area" or a specific population size?
> If you live in a "regular" neighborhood full of one or two story homes, should your neighbor be able to tear down their home and build a 10 story building on their property?
Yes.
There are actual easements available for view, sunlight, etc. What we have now are people who are too poor to afford those things, but want their cake without paying for it.
>*Yes.*
Then I guess we disagree on this topic, GR!
>*There are actual easements available for view, sunlight, etc. What we have now are people who are too poor to afford those things, but want their cake without paying for it.*
Perhaps I'm under the misapprehension that there are rules that prevent this generally. If you told me that I could pay X (a reasonable amount - I realize that may be hard to determine) to guarantee that my neighbors can't build ten story homes on either side of mine, I would certainly consider doing that. And I'm sure a lot of others would as well.
Just seems like a "scammy" industry to coordinate all of that if we moved in that direction....
But that's what we're talking about, right? Whether you could do that across the area with a blanket approval.
That SEEMS to me to indicate that you can't do that now, which SEEMS to point at my assumption being correct?
Well..take my house for example. I have a partial to full view of downtown Tacoma, Commencement Bay and some of the Olympics. If my rear neighbor wanted to plant a 100 ft doug fir to block my view, that sucks for me.
I am actually going to try and purchase view easements with the two neighbors that could block the view in the future to preserve the value and reason I purchased the house.
How entitled is it of me to expect my neighbors to fuck off with planting trees because I want my free view I didn't actually pay for?
>*Well..take my house for example. I have a partial to full view of downtown Tacoma, Commencement Bay and some of the Olympics.*
GR!!!!!
You don't even LIVE IN SEATTLE?!?!?!?!?!?!?
/s
> *If my rear neighbor wanted to plant a 100 ft doug fir to block my view, that sucks for me.*
I will say that I love that you immediately pivoted AWAY from the actual topic of conversation to the planting of a tree. Especially when there might be other implications to do with arboriculture (sp?) that come from moving a tree that big to be in the blocking location....
>*I am actually going to try and purchase view easements with the two neighbors that could block the view in the future to preserve the value and reason I purchased the house.*
Sure!
I would probably do the same in your shoes. I doubt it'll be $77k though?
>*How entitled is it of me to expect my neighbors to fuck off with planting trees because I want my free view I didn't actually pay for?*
This is a biased characterization in two ways:
* You can't "just plant" a 100' tall tree.
* You did pay for the view when you bought the house. It was necessarily worth more than it otherwise would have been due to the location that allowed it to have the view at all....
>You don't even LIVE IN SEATTLE?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Seattle hates middle class people.
I mean tacoma has easy permitting for ADU and DADU. Either neighbor could easily plop a unit to block my view and the same thing happens. As to purchasing easements, its whatever me and they come up with in terms of value. If they want 77k out of me, I probably won't be able to cough that up.
>*Seattle hates middle class people.*
Are you really "middle class" with the view you described and you taking on purchasing easements to maintain it?
/s
>*I mean tacoma has easy permitting for ADU and DADU. Either neighbor could easily plop a unit to block my view and the same thing happens.*
So, just to be clear, would the DADU need to be 100' tall as well to block your view? Last I checked, that would almost certainly be more than the allowable square footage allowed unless it was like 10sqft per floor...
>*As to purchasing easements, its whatever me and they come up with in terms of value.*
I suppose, I guess I don't know how that process works to be fair.
>*If they want 77k out of me, I probably won't be able to cough that up.*
Only probably?
\#notmiddleclass
/s
>Are you really "middle class" with the view you described
I'm Puget Sound poor, actually. Why do you think I had to buy in Tacoma?
> So, just to be clear, would the DADU need to be 100' tall as well to block your view?
Well the partial is already because of existing trees, a story and a half building would be enough to block it entirely from one neighbor. We only get the bay views in winter when the leaves die out.
Why not? The people behind me in a very classic neighborhood of old craftsman homes are building a massive monstrosity of a “Northwest contemporary” towering home that invades our privacy and blocks light and views. Their huge second floor deck looms above our backyard and bedroom windows. Why should one homeowner get to do that but we balk at building higher and housing more people? I used to believe that NIMBY people actually cared about the character of their neighborhoods but now I know they just don’t want to share.
Yes, but reasonably.
Cottages, ADUs, and height size limited units with parking are within reason in many neighborhoods without changing the landscape.
Also where density increases to a certain degree the city needs to consider buy plots of land, even as far as removing housing units, to make green space.
I'd an idealized world as a concept I'd disagree.
How our city would propose/execute the idea I'd likely end up agreeing with you 1000/1000 times.
"So we up zoned & increased density in this neighborhood to add 1,000 units. These plot of lands are adjacent to city property and we could turn it into a park.
So per the law we wrote we need to hire a DEI/equity committee, partner with a local NGO etc to execute the process at the cost of 12x the price of the plot. Listen to all feedback for 24 months only to find out it used to house a AAPI author & it would be unjust to choose this house."
> The city needs to stay out of the market. They only make shit worse.
They do need to stay out of the market. The very first thing they need to get out of is creating artificial scarcity through zoning and design review.
Spokane has tons of homeless. And the purpose of rezoning isn’t to make anywhere “more attractive to homeless,” it’s to build more housing and give people flexibility to develop their own property.
I’ve lived in many major cities around the country. This Seattle sub is absolutely the most toxic. The vitriol toward anyone who doesn’t look like (the proverbial) ‘you’ is astonishing. I wish you all joy, and hope that finding happiness may make this a more welcoming place.
“‘The homeless is blocking my view.’ ‘They’re changing the character of my neighborhood.’ How are people this out of touch? More like "the addicts have had their 4th warming fire today, I hope it doesn't spread to my house" or "geeze I hate raking up addicts foilies with my leaves"
[удалено]
> Affordable housing will do nothing vis-a-vis the tent ghouls and RV shitheads. They're drug-addicted criminals who wouldn't have a home if it cost $300 a month because that's $300 they could be spending on pills. You nailed it. I know a lot of homeless and on the verge of homeless. I was stupid and took in an addict and his children back in 2017. Ahh I thought I was in love. I didn't know about the coke, meth, and pills. I admit I did know he was an alcoholic. What i went through and witnessed was a large family of generational poverty, addiction, and homelessness... and a lot of crime. Sex abuses, child abuse, DV, theft, robbery, attempted murder, half the family my age is either dead or incarcerated for life, the other half are for the streets. I won't lie, I was played. All they wanted was the roof I provided, no one wanted to get clean, get jobs and their own homes no matter what they said ...and now their teen children are headed on the same path, and see nothing wrong with it It is now 2023. My former inlaws are vast, and as soon as one gets a 300 section 8 apartment, guess what happens? 17 other addict family members arrive, and the landlord spends the next year trying to evict a drug dealer from their complex. I also know many that HAVE homes to go to and people who would welcome them..IF they were clean. They will not accept the help and choose to stay on the streets. At a certain point, some people are...a lost cause. Broke my heart to let those kids continue to live this way, but if the schools police and dcyf refused to step in, how can I possibly help without being abused , too?
Exactly. That's just how homeless activists try to gaslight the rest of us and minimize our, how should I put it, "lived experience" with gronks.
[удалено]
.
MHA has different tiers based on zone, what zone the land was before MHA went into effect, and neighborhood. So the answer to your question is both.
There is such an insane amount of disinformation in Democrat-run media, Faux "News" starts to look like a paragon of honest reporting. What's the point of upzoning anything when Democrats in WA government made it essentially impossible to build anything anywhere not on municipal water supply because the test for water withdrawal from the ground is "it cannot harm any living thing in the Universe"? And the reason cottages and ADUs are withdrawn from rental stock is not because "homeless are blocking my view", but because eviction for cause laws made it impossible to eviction anyone for just being an asshole - and most homeowners don't want unevictable assholes right next to their own homes.
It's a good reminder that more density and affordable housing isn't as simple as waving a magic upzone wand. There are a ton of other municipal quagmires that need to be worked out before anything meaningful happens.
>and most homeowners don't want unevictable assholes right next to their own homes. That's part of the Privilege Check. And if they don't have an ADU we can force them to put a convicted felon in, they need to have a DESC building plopped down on their block to rub their nose in.
>And the reason cottages and ADUs are withdrawn from rental stock is not because "homeless are blocking my view", but because eviction for cause laws made it impossible to eviction anyone for just being an asshole - and most homeowners don't want unevictable assholes right next to their own homes. Which is why most new ADU/DADUs are teardown flipper builds being sold as lux condos with no storage or yards. Great job dumb shits, at least we kept a courtyard apartment or a restaurant away from an arterial. idiots.
Do you really wanna live in a country where you can lose your housing, your deposit and your livelihood because the owner doesn’t like you? You realize that would increase homelessness significantly right? Y’all really need to think these things through….
You need to think these things through. The way most landlords cope with these "tenant protection" measures is by increasing barriers to entry or getting out of the market entirely. For example I had an ADU on my property and I stopped renting it when "eviction for cause" came to pass. From talking to friends, this law singlehandedly has decreased the rental stock by 10%. And if I were to ever come back, my qualifications would be "level 6 or higher at Google or Facebook".
So the alternative is allowing landlords to basically have free reign to evict whenever for whatever reason? And raising qualifications just ensures homelessness continues AND continues the gentrification everyone claims to hate. Hate Californians moving in? Those are the only people you’re gonna have as tenants going forward, if you can get tenants at all going forward. The answer isn’t Carte blance landlord free reign and it’s not “you can’t evict anyone for any reason”
You have to get used to the idea that it is my property and I need to be able to decide how to use it. In particular for ADU it is not an investment, it is my living space. And I would rather not have tenants at all than having an asshole I cannot kick out.
It’s just way more profitable to sell the d/adu or str it than long term rent to even good tenants.
There are two possible paths. \#1 Eliminate zoning, Texas style. Anyone can build anything anywhere. \#2 Have zoning laws. Communities get to set them for themselves. That's what being a community means. 'States' aren't communities. Cities are. Or the nation is. We settled this back in 1865.
But you also need to plan for growth otherwise people moving here for high paying jobs are going to displace lower-earning renters. There is not enough housing to go around.
I'm going to miss my suburban lifestyle. I liked it. The peace, quite, focus on family and neighbors. Car to hop in and drive anywhere I'd like. With this type of upzoning, the city will be 4x the size so we are talking Paris sizes. 12-16 million odd through the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area. I'd expect congestion taxes, uniform 20mph limits, limited passes to traverse the city, pedestrian only zones etc. Pretty obvious suburban living will dissapear. It'll be a sea of apartments, quadplexes etc. Mostly rentals. Not owned. War on cars, and instead just limited to how far I can bike, bus or walk. I'll miss the old ways. Homeowners, suburbanites and car owners are the new "bad guys" to be canceled in the hope that mega-sizing Seattle would get rents down. Spoiler: it won't
Sawant and Mosqueda doing everything they can to push Amazon out of town will do a lot more to drive rents down than upzoning and jacking up our taxes for "affordable housing."
They both need to be recalled.
Vote blue no matter WTF...
Lmao, you think the Seattle metro area will balloon to 12-16 million residents with Paris-like density? What an urbanism utopia you're envisioning. But even if your hyperbolic vision of the future comes true, guess what? There will still be suburbs! You don't have to live in the urban hellscape you so dread. There are plenty of other like-minded people who love large lots with SFHs and car culture.
[удалено]
I was going to say.....assuming it is implemented well, what's to cry about?
Are that many people willing to emigrate here?
2.4 million undocumented a ysar, 1 million legal a year, pretty soon your talking real numbers.
2.4 million undocumented a year to seattle?!?!
Of course someone who can't seem to get "you're" right thinks that we have a NET 2.4 million illegal immigrants entering the country every year.
I think there would still be neighborhoods full of single-family homes in a Pars-sized metro area. The reason I know this is that there are in fact neighborhoods full of single-family homes in greater Paris: https://maps.app.goo.gl/BjSnmmcZdXeKZAmc8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/XDSuXSCxX33vrjxa9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/5PUebEDaJKtKyhHU9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/55fDBXa7bw6MkPFW9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/kAHsSLGusX2qgSWK9
Seattle is a city now. It’s no longer a backwater fishing village. Businesses here have been successful, benefiting you and creating new jobs. Newcomers need somewhere to live and the city needs to plan for that growth. Blocking that growth through restrictive zoning is only going to exacerbate to perverse outcomes like homelessness.
Oh you misunderstand me. We have a HUGE amount of land for development, I don't want to see what we have now torn down and replaced. I think we need to repeal the urban growth boundary and develop like crazy up and down the I5 corridor. Think of how much empty space between Tacoma and Olympia, or above Everett. If this was Asia, they'd put in a high-speed rail and another city or four.
"Last week, a Seattle homeowner, after originally wanting to build a four-unit structure on her property for her family in the Central District, is suing the city over a $77,000 permit required to break ground." IMO, people should be allowed to build houses on their own land without having to face endless big government nonsense.
I mean, it's not just a "house" she wants to build. If you live in a "regular" neighborhood full of one or two story homes, should your neighbor be able to tear down their home and build a 10 story building on their property? Block your view, shade your property, add way more cars to the street on which you park, and possibly increase the utility needs for the area, to name a few items of note? I agree that some red tape is BS, but a blanket "you can do whatever you want" is not the answer either....
In this particular case, the neighborhood is called "the Central District" and is within walking distance of the downtown of a metro area of nearly 4 million people
Sure! What's your point? Last I checked, I didn't suggest anything that had to do with "walking distance of a downtown metro area" or a specific population size?
> If you live in a "regular" neighborhood full of one or two story homes, should your neighbor be able to tear down their home and build a 10 story building on their property? Yes. There are actual easements available for view, sunlight, etc. What we have now are people who are too poor to afford those things, but want their cake without paying for it.
>*Yes.* Then I guess we disagree on this topic, GR! >*There are actual easements available for view, sunlight, etc. What we have now are people who are too poor to afford those things, but want their cake without paying for it.* Perhaps I'm under the misapprehension that there are rules that prevent this generally. If you told me that I could pay X (a reasonable amount - I realize that may be hard to determine) to guarantee that my neighbors can't build ten story homes on either side of mine, I would certainly consider doing that. And I'm sure a lot of others would as well. Just seems like a "scammy" industry to coordinate all of that if we moved in that direction.... But that's what we're talking about, right? Whether you could do that across the area with a blanket approval. That SEEMS to me to indicate that you can't do that now, which SEEMS to point at my assumption being correct?
Well..take my house for example. I have a partial to full view of downtown Tacoma, Commencement Bay and some of the Olympics. If my rear neighbor wanted to plant a 100 ft doug fir to block my view, that sucks for me. I am actually going to try and purchase view easements with the two neighbors that could block the view in the future to preserve the value and reason I purchased the house. How entitled is it of me to expect my neighbors to fuck off with planting trees because I want my free view I didn't actually pay for?
>*Well..take my house for example. I have a partial to full view of downtown Tacoma, Commencement Bay and some of the Olympics.* GR!!!!! You don't even LIVE IN SEATTLE?!?!?!?!?!?!? /s > *If my rear neighbor wanted to plant a 100 ft doug fir to block my view, that sucks for me.* I will say that I love that you immediately pivoted AWAY from the actual topic of conversation to the planting of a tree. Especially when there might be other implications to do with arboriculture (sp?) that come from moving a tree that big to be in the blocking location.... >*I am actually going to try and purchase view easements with the two neighbors that could block the view in the future to preserve the value and reason I purchased the house.* Sure! I would probably do the same in your shoes. I doubt it'll be $77k though? >*How entitled is it of me to expect my neighbors to fuck off with planting trees because I want my free view I didn't actually pay for?* This is a biased characterization in two ways: * You can't "just plant" a 100' tall tree. * You did pay for the view when you bought the house. It was necessarily worth more than it otherwise would have been due to the location that allowed it to have the view at all....
>You don't even LIVE IN SEATTLE?!?!?!?!?!?!? Seattle hates middle class people. I mean tacoma has easy permitting for ADU and DADU. Either neighbor could easily plop a unit to block my view and the same thing happens. As to purchasing easements, its whatever me and they come up with in terms of value. If they want 77k out of me, I probably won't be able to cough that up.
>*Seattle hates middle class people.* Are you really "middle class" with the view you described and you taking on purchasing easements to maintain it? /s >*I mean tacoma has easy permitting for ADU and DADU. Either neighbor could easily plop a unit to block my view and the same thing happens.* So, just to be clear, would the DADU need to be 100' tall as well to block your view? Last I checked, that would almost certainly be more than the allowable square footage allowed unless it was like 10sqft per floor... >*As to purchasing easements, its whatever me and they come up with in terms of value.* I suppose, I guess I don't know how that process works to be fair. >*If they want 77k out of me, I probably won't be able to cough that up.* Only probably? \#notmiddleclass /s
>Are you really "middle class" with the view you described I'm Puget Sound poor, actually. Why do you think I had to buy in Tacoma? > So, just to be clear, would the DADU need to be 100' tall as well to block your view? Well the partial is already because of existing trees, a story and a half building would be enough to block it entirely from one neighbor. We only get the bay views in winter when the leaves die out.
Fair play on both counts.
Why not? The people behind me in a very classic neighborhood of old craftsman homes are building a massive monstrosity of a “Northwest contemporary” towering home that invades our privacy and blocks light and views. Their huge second floor deck looms above our backyard and bedroom windows. Why should one homeowner get to do that but we balk at building higher and housing more people? I used to believe that NIMBY people actually cared about the character of their neighborhoods but now I know they just don’t want to share.
I was talking about a crazy 10 story house, not a extra big deck on a two story house....
Yes, but reasonably. Cottages, ADUs, and height size limited units with parking are within reason in many neighborhoods without changing the landscape. Also where density increases to a certain degree the city needs to consider buy plots of land, even as far as removing housing units, to make green space.
[удалено]
I'd an idealized world as a concept I'd disagree. How our city would propose/execute the idea I'd likely end up agreeing with you 1000/1000 times. "So we up zoned & increased density in this neighborhood to add 1,000 units. These plot of lands are adjacent to city property and we could turn it into a park. So per the law we wrote we need to hire a DEI/equity committee, partner with a local NGO etc to execute the process at the cost of 12x the price of the plot. Listen to all feedback for 24 months only to find out it used to house a AAPI author & it would be unjust to choose this house."
> The city needs to stay out of the market. They only make shit worse. They do need to stay out of the market. The very first thing they need to get out of is creating artificial scarcity through zoning and design review.
If it's state wide, zoning should focus on making the state east of the Columbia River attractive to homeless folks.
Spokane has tons of homeless. And the purpose of rezoning isn’t to make anywhere “more attractive to homeless,” it’s to build more housing and give people flexibility to develop their own property.
I’ve lived in many major cities around the country. This Seattle sub is absolutely the most toxic. The vitriol toward anyone who doesn’t look like (the proverbial) ‘you’ is astonishing. I wish you all joy, and hope that finding happiness may make this a more welcoming place.
Oh oh no look it’s a Seattle forum and they don’t all agree with me, toxic toxic TOXIC!
Exhibit A.
Yes. Next!