SEATTLE FAIR GROWTH
  • Home
  • About
    • Affordability >
      • Metrics
    • Displacement
  • Resources
    • Videos
    • Communities
    • Missing Middle Fact Sheet
    • FAQ
    • Real People Real Stories
    • Articles
  • Blog
  • Join
  • Donate
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • About
    • Affordability >
      • Metrics
    • Displacement
  • Resources
    • Videos
    • Communities
    • Missing Middle Fact Sheet
    • FAQ
    • Real People Real Stories
    • Articles
  • Blog
  • Join
  • Donate
  • Facebook

our Blog: The talk of the town

Vote Alex Pedersen

11/1/2019

0 Comments

 
by Sarajane Siegfriedt

​Alex Pedersen has denounced dark money, corporate PACs and refused any corporate donations. He was the first in the city to qualify for Democracy Vouchers. His #1 priority is housing and homelessness and his vote is "owned" by the voters whose doors he knocked on. Scott says good stuff but he doesn't have the experience to get things done. His resume is paper-thin. He wants to head Planning, Land Use and Zoning, the most technical committee. Scott's positions are in support of unlimited development. I can't understand a Socialist giving free hand to Downtown Developers. Vote for Pedersen.
0 Comments

The U Is For Sacrifice

1/18/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture
by Shirley Nixon and Nancy Bocek, co-leads of Livable U District

Increasing allowable building heights in the U District by 400% to nearly 500% in many cases (current 55’, 65 and 85'maximums to 240’ and 320’) is a too massive and unnecessary upzone!
The U District is indeed to become a sacrifice zone, with its unique character destroyed forever.  We need to tell our elected officials that this upzone proposal is unacceptable, unsupportable and unfair. But Council Member Rob Johnson seems determined to vote it out of his PLUZ Committee and adopted by the full council in just a few short weeks.
 
If this is to be prevented, City Council members must hear now from residents and independent business owners who want a more Livable U District and First Things First instead of an upzone ordinance that will only blanket the community with taller densely packed buildings, less livability, and more displacement.

Where do we fit in all this?  Dispelling the myth that this upzone is what "the community" wants and needs.

Read More...


Read More
1 Comment

West Seattle petition for 6-month extension on HALA

1/16/2017

2 Comments

 
Picture
 The West Seattle Junction Neighborhood Organization, JuNO, sent a letter to City Council requesting a six month delay on the HALA draft proposal before proceeding to an Environmental Impact Study or EIS. Please see the attached letter for an outline of their concerns, which include a lack of neighborhood outreach by the city and not enough time for the neighborhood to responsibly study and respond to the proposed rezones.
 
If you would like more info on JuNO and how to get involved, please email: wsjuno@yahoo.com

​

juno_to_city_council.pdf
File Size: 265 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2 Comments

In Seattle – A Side Yard or Towering Toaster Box House?

1/11/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
by Lisa Parriott

In 2012, Dianna McLeod, a senior citizen, called the City of Seattle’s DPD and asked if her side yard was a buildable lot.  She was told no.  Immediately following, developer Dan Duffus bought her property, split the lot in 2, built and sold a towering toaster box house on the new lot for a large profit.

Our neighbor, a senior citizen, contracted with a professional real estate agent to sell his home with a large side yard.  His north Admiral (West Seattle) property sold for $505,000 less than 14 months ago to developer Cliff Low. He now lives in a trailer park in Puyallup.  On January 12, 2017, 9AM @ Seattle Municipal Tower in Parriott vs. City of Seattle, the neighbors will make the case to the City’s Hearing Examiner that the side yard is not a separate building site, based on a 1957 City LU Code loophole – Historic Lot Exception.  If unsuccessful, Cliff Low will have secured a vacant lot in Seattle for little to no money.  He will be allowed to squeeze a towering toaster box home onto the side yard and walk away with over $400,000 profit.

​
read more...


Read More
0 Comments

January 09th, 2017

1/9/2017

1 Comment

 
1 Comment

U District BIA Not Representative of Business/Property Owners

1/9/2017

1 Comment

 
by Shirley Nixon:

​Attached is a 2015 map showing property parcels in the U District, and whether the parcel owner voted for or against expanding the U District Business Improvement Area (BIA).  If the parcel is shown in red, the owner objected to the expansion and having to pay a BIA assessment.   Blue parcels voted for the BIA.  Light purple parcels are owned by the UW and not assessable in the traditional sense.  White parcels are single family, townhouses, or multifamily of three units or less, which are not taxable.  (Condominium buildings were deemed taxable as “businesses” even though composed of multiple single-family units; which is a whole other sore spot….)
You’ll note that there are vastly more red parcels (by a factor of about 4 to 1) than blue parcels. 

Read more...

Picture

Read More
1 Comment

Grand Bargain Isn't Grand at all

11/23/2016

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

The Grand Bargain is a Grand Giveaway

11/21/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture

by Jon Lisbin

The Seattle City Council is considering massive upzones in the University District as the first implementation of it's "Inclusionary Housing" strategies throughout the city.

Truth is, if I was Mayor, I may have taken the same approach. Put together a panel of experts and stakeholders to come up with strategies to address Seattle’s affordable housing crisis. Unfortunately, that’s where intelligence ended and corruption began. The composition of HALA (Housing and Livability Agenda) Committee was heavily weighted toward developers and their interests.  The resulting skewed report was biased towards special interests.

I know, at this point you are saying “another conspiracy theorist”. However, the facts behind my assertion are quite compelling.  Maybe I can speak in a language city officials are familiar with?
  1. Whereas, of the 65 HALA strategies there are few if any recommendations that actually address livability, ie. “No L in HALA”
  2. Whereas the City Council is focused on only one HALA strategy; upzoning?
  3. Whereas the city’s set asides that developers are required to contribute towards affordable housing, pale compared to other cities.
  4. Whereas government intervention of market forces, intended to help the poor with housing, has historically failed.
  5. Whereas, impact fees that would potentially moderate development, add value to neighborhoods, and encourage developers to pay their fair share; are not being considered
​Therefore, it is evident that the city has divested its responsibility to truly help the affordability crisis and instead is contributing directly to it!
​
I know the train has left the station. I know it would take true courage to stop it now. I ask that our city leaders have that courage!

Picture
* Seattle's current plan calls for 3 - 8% Set Asides, significantly below other major cities, but not set yet.
2 Comments

Public Comment at City of Seattle Hearing re:  Proposed Upzone of the University District

11/20/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture
by Linda Nash and Jim Hanford

​​2016 will be the hottest year on record.  Atmospheric carbon levels are now higher than they have been in 4 million years.  Seattle has admirably made the commitment to carbon neutrality by the year 2050.  Locating new housing and businesses near transportation is an important step.  But that alone is not enough.  One-third of Seattle’s energy use comes from buildings. 

In order to achieve carbon neutrality while continuing to grow, the City will have to transition the vast majority of its building stock away from the consumption of electricity and fossil fuels.  Yet high-rise construction, as proposed here, is a high-carbon option.  Seattle’s own data show that high-rise multi-family buildings currently consume 45% more energy per square foot than mid-rise multi-family and 64% more than low-rise multi-family.  In the case of tall buildings, the emphasis on small efficiency improvements and “LEED” certification merely serves to make wasteful construction slightly less unsustainable. 

​There are significant obstacles to making tall buildings energy and carbon efficient:  they require more elevators and air-conditioning; they have more exposure to wind and sun and have higher rates of heat gain and loss;  they have a small roof-top area limits the potential to use solar and other renewables.  To make matters worse, tall buildings exacerbate the effects of very high temperature days (which we are now experiencing in the summer) by raising surrounding air temperatures and decreasing air flow between buildings.  Their long shadows also limit the potential for solar energy on adjacent sites.  If Seattle truly wants to mitigate climate change, it will need to prioritize energy considerations in zoning and the design of buildings. 

Modern, tower-dominated downtowns emerged in an era of cheap and abundant fossil fuels, and they do not obviously serve the needs of the twenty-first century.  Buildings last for many decades and will shape the city’s design and energy needs far into the future.  We can’t afford not to get it right.

Read more by Jim Hanford: High-rises are energy hogs, not climate solutions

2 Comments

MHA citywide EIS Scoping Documents Posted

11/19/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
A series of documents have been posted on the “What’s Happening” tab, and under the “Growth with Affordability” link. In the Citywide Implementation of MHA box on this page are the following three documents related to the EIS scoping.
  • EIS Scoping Summary
  • Attachment 1: Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice
  • Attachment 2: Scoping Informational Handout


The City of Seattle is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code to implement Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) for multifamily and commercial development meeting certain thresholds. MHA would require developers either to build affordable housing on-site or to make an in-lieu payment to support the development of affordable housing throughout the city. MHA is expected to create a total of 6,000 new affordable homes over the next 10 years for lowincome families and individuals. To implement MHA, the City would make changes to the Land Use Code to grant additional development capacity in existing commercial and multifamily zones and in areas currently zoned single family in existing or expanded urban villages. A summary of the current draft of the additional development capacity in each zone can be found here: 

Scoping is the process of identifying the elements of the environment to be evaluated in an EIS. Scoping is intended to help identify and narrow the issues to those that are significant. Scoping includes a public comment period so that the public and other agencies can comment on key issues and concerns. Following the comment period, the City considers all comments received and determines the scope of review for the environmental analysis. The City issued a Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice for MHA on July 28, 2016, and made it available to the public through a variety of methods (see Attachment 1). The Scoping Notice states that the EIS will consider potential impacts associated with land use, housing and socioeconomics, aesthetics and height/bulk/scale, historic resources, open space and recreation, transportation, public services, and utilities. The scoping period closed on September 9, 2016.
1 Comment
<<Previous

Contact Us

Seattle Fair Growth
2442 NW Market Street, Box 487
Seattle, WA 98107
​sfg@seattlefairgrowth.org​

Subscribe

Join our mailing list today!
Join Now