Seattle wants to eliminate single family zonings to increase diversity

originally posted by: CB328

So it's a justification for tax increases

Maybe, but jamming in more people will bring in more tax revenues.

If they're requiring 1800 in housing subsidies, I don't see them having much disposable income to be taxed.

a reply to: AbstractDreamz

You've made up your mind, I won't try to dissuade you with facts other than these..

The Single Family Zoning requirements are ridiculous. Changing them to a multitude of more efficient land use types is actually a reduction in government control of what people can build on their property.

Y'all are choking on the word DIVERSITY because you think it's only speaking of racial diversity ... there is also diversity in land use and construction standards.

The latter is what this is about.

a reply to: beezzer

Quote from the Daily Caller is regarding Dallas TX not Seattle WA.

Does that make any difference at all?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

You've made up your mind, I won't try to dissuade you with facts other than these..

The Single Family Zoning requirements are ridiculous. Changing them to a multitude of more efficient land use types is actually a reduction in government control of what people can build on their property.

Y'all are choking on the word DIVERSITY because you think it's only speaking of racial diversity ... there is also diversity in land use and construction standards.

The latter is what this is about.

All zoning requirements are ridiculous, no matter where you live. Especially in big cities.

Really? Land diversity?

Quote from article.

The draft report notes that “Seattle (single-family) zoning has roots in racial and class exclusion and remains among the largest obstacles to realizing the city’s goals for equity and affordability.”

It's all about diversity in land unless you want to build the soon to be renamed "Single-Family" home.

“In fact, (the committee) recommends we abandon the term ‘single family zone,’ ” the draft reads.

That's not land diversity, that's pushing government forces to NOT have more diversity.

...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 yards.

Rooming houses are so much better though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure. You saying that there won't be subsidies?

Personally, if I want a big house, I'll just move. I refuse to let government dictate how big a property I must have.

So expect a flight of similar-minded people.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure. You saying that there won't be subsidies?

Personally, if I want a big house, I'll just move. I refuse to let government dictate how big a property I must have.

So expect a flight of similar-minded people.

And that is EXACTLY what will happen and Seattle will be replaced with Rooming Houses.

a reply to: AbstractDreamz

Zoning is and has been a fact of life, particularly in cities. I'm not sure if this is a new concept to you or ...

Yes, the diversity is focused on the types of buildings that can be built and the requirements of same. It just is. If you're interested in the facts, look at the actual specs of what is required in Single Family Zoning in Seattle (linked above).

Have you ever been to Seattle? It's not only liberal, it's very essentially millenial hipsters that make up a lot of the population. The comment was (as is probably accurate) that the size of teh lots and houses required in "Single Family Zoning" were designed at some point as an impediment to poorer people (not just Blacks) trying to acquire land to use in the city.

You said you read the article. Did you notice where the city official that the CITIZENS' recommendation would only be considered for some of these Single Family Zoning areas and not all?

You realize that eliminating Single Family Zoning does not mean that there can be no single family residences, right?

You can tell me if I'm wasting my time here. If you want this to be a big government/racial issue, that's cool ... but it's not.

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure. You saying that there won't be subsidies?

Personally, if I want a big house, I'll just move. I refuse to let government dictate how big a property I must have.

So expect a flight of similar-minded people.

And that is EXACTLY what will happen and Seattle will be replaced with Rooming Houses.

Now it's rooming houses, a few minutes ago it was "Cabrini Greens" ... are you fine-tuning your fortune-telling abilities tonight? LOL

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure. You saying that there won't be subsidies?

Personally, if I want a big house, I'll just move. I refuse to let government dictate how big a property I must have.

So expect a flight of similar-minded people.

By "subsidies" do you mean the HUD program that's being run in Dallas? I don't pretend to have an idea.

The article, again, regards a recommendation from a CITIZEN commission for items for Seattle OFFICIALS to CONSIDER.

It's actually a lot more democratic than the way most cities run zoning changes, which are all market driven.

These suggestions aren't law, they aren't policy and the City OFFICIALS have already said this would not happen to ALL Single Family zoning areas. There seems to be a lot of misapprehension regarding the article.

Local governments have been dictating zoning laws for over 100 years

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure. You saying that there won't be subsidies?

Personally, if I want a big house, I'll just move. I refuse to let government dictate how big a property I must have.

So expect a flight of similar-minded people.

And that is EXACTLY what will happen and Seattle will be replaced with Rooming Houses.

Now it's rooming houses, a few minutes ago it was "Cabrini Greens" ... are you fine-tuning your fortune-telling abilities tonight? LOL

Not my words. Did you read the article by the OP?

...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 yards.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure. You saying that there won't be subsidies?

Personally, if I want a big house, I'll just move. I refuse to let government dictate how big a property I must have.

So expect a flight of similar-minded people.

Oh yeah, they will have subsidies:

http:// www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2237699.pdf

H
((40))39 Strive over time for a perm
anent subsidized rental housing stock with
unit types and sizes that reflect the hous
ing needs of the city’s low-income
households.
H
((41))40 Provide affordable housing for low-income families with children,
recognizing that family
housing requires greater subsidies due to larger
household size, the need for play areas fo
r children, and s
eparation of parking
and access roads from play areas.
H
((42))41 Encourage and support the developm
ent of affordable housing for low-
income households in all parts of the
city, including areas of high land cost
where greater subsidies may be needed.
H
((43))42 Allow use of public funds to pr
ovide subsidized low-income housing units
in otherwise market-rate housing developm
ents in order to better integrate low-
income households into the community.
H
((44))43 Allocate resources for financia
l assistance to eligible tenants with
incomes up to 50 percent of median in
come who are displaced from existing
low-income housing because of redevel
opment, substantial rehabilitation,
change-of-use or termination of long-term, lo
w-income rent restrictions in order
to help offset the cost of relocating
to another unit consistent with applicable
state laws.


And Tax Money to Pay for it

. Work with other jurisdictions in Ki
ng County to pursue production of assisted
low-income housing throughout the regi
on and an equitable distribution of
the cost of providing housing and
human services to very-low-income
households, including the regional pr
oblem of homelessness. Pursue the
development of new funding sources,
including a regional housing levy or
other sources of funding for low-in
come housing and related supportive
services that may be used throughout the region.
d. Continue providing local resources (such as levies, bond issues, and the
City’s general fund) to
meet housing needs, lever
aging funds from other
sources where appropriate.
e. Continue to lobby the state governm
ent to enact tax incentives and to
increase housing funds to encourage t
he preservation of existing low-
income housing.
H
((48))47 Strive to leverage federal, stat
e, and private resour
ces with local public
funds, where these resources help
achieve the goals of Seattle’s
Comprehensive Plan.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I posted quotes directly from the article that shows there is an aspect of racial issues into this. I didn't write that, the article by the OP did. I understand that they aren't getting rid of ALL single-family zoning. But again, why not build out instead of up?

Here is another quote DIRECTLY from the article IMPLYING this is a government issue and a social justice issue.

Irene Wall, co-chair of the City Neighborhood Council’s land-use committee, was sharply critical of the draft recommendation.

“I hope the whole idea goes away,” she said. “It’s a dumb idea that will shatter the golden goose that has fed Seattle’s tax system so long with rising property values, and it’s not going to get us social justice.”

Someone just asked: "why not build out rather than up." Smh

Does anyone in this thread actually live in Seattle? I do.

a reply to: JadeStar

Why is it not possible? N/S are and E around Washington can all be built further. Building doesn't need to be directly downtown. Chicago has built out amazingly.

a reply to: AbstractDreamz

So because you strung together cherry-picked quotes completely out of context to support your prejudiced assumptions, that's all the article is about?

Fine. For you, it's a racial question. Or a governmental "interference" question.

But it's actually a long-standing question in Seattle about land use rights, density, greater diversity in use, etc.

Best.

originally posted by: JadeStar
Someone just asked: "why not build out rather than up." Smh

Does anyone in this thread actually live in Seattle? I do.

Can you shed some light on these questions for us?

As someone, you know, who actually lives in Seattle and knows what is really at stake here?

I for one would greatly appreciate it.

a reply to: infolurker

That's not a real link to the text that you posted. The link you posted is a PDF showing the city's zoning area.

Can you publish the full link so we can verify what you're referring to?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JadeStar
Someone just asked: "why not build out rather than up." Smh

Does anyone in this thread actually live in Seattle? I do.

Can you shed some light on these questions for us?

As someone, you know, who actually lives in Seattle and knows what is really at stake here?

I for one would greatly appreciate it.

I can in a little bit. I'm kind of swamped with something at the moment but the essence of things here is that Seattle is growing at a very rapid rate.

And it is not lower class people who are the ones growing it. It's middle-class and upper middle class people who are moving here as a result of the growth in industries located here or nearby. Everything from established companies like Amazon and Microsoft to ones representing completely new industries like the personal robotics company Hoaloha Robotics or the asteroid mining company Planetary Resources are expected to grow and with them the demand for housing will as well.

There will be more jobs than places for the people who work in them to live at current growth rates. By 2035 Seattle will grow by another 120,000 people and 115,000 jobs.



Due to the city and region's geography, there simply is no way to build out. Everything has to be built up.

There's a even a funny Geekwire youtube video which kind of shows how Seattle could grow:



Even if it were possible to build out, most Seattleites absolutely abhor sprawl, preferring a dense urban core where they can walk or bike to most of what they need. Also Seattle traffic is pretty bad and it is only getting worse as more people move to the city. So adding sprawl to places like Renton, South Center, Everett, Bellevue (which is like a whole other city with its own downtown core) would make getting anywhere into or out of Seattle impossible.

It's kind of funny to hear people in this thread talking about people fleeing the city. If only that were possible That's extremely unlikely.

So when you see Townhouses and Condos and stuff like Urban VIllages being proposed that's to ACCOMMODATE the middle class NOT to drive them out.

I suggest people peruse this website: 2035.seattle.gov...

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz
a reply to: JadeStar

Why is it not possible? N/S are and E around Washington can all be built further. Building doesn't need to be directly downtown. Chicago has built out amazingly.

See my post above.

a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you for clear, simple, statements of facts.

And for taking time away from your work to do so.