A Standard Canard

By Morning Fizz, Monday, June 29, 2009 at 8:46 AM
View Comments

fizz26

1) Ask and you shall receive: Last week, PubliCola wished for more information about elusive King County Executive candidate Susan Hutchison’s views on county issues. (Hutchison, a former KIRO anchor, is a conservative former board member of the creationist Discovery Institute). Voila: Andrew Villeneuve at the Northwest Progressive Institute delivered this weekend, with a transcript of Hutchison’s remarks at last Friday’s Eastside Candidates Forum in North Bend.

Asked what she would do about the Critical Areas Ordinance, which was put in place to limit suburban development in rural areas, Hutchison called it a “classic example” of the county being “arrogant and disdainful [and] arbitrary” and said she would work to “make sure that property rights are restored.” Hutchison also said she’d support dissolving the region’s transit agencies and putting them under a single state-created authority. And she claimed, inaccurately, that the sheriff’s and prosecutor’s offices had been cut more dramatically than other county departments in this year’s round of budget cuts (in fact, health and human services bore the brunt of the cuts).

2) City council candidate David Miller told PubliCola last week that he is “not a NIMBY” (“not in my backyard”), adding that he supported density in urban villages and didn’t oppose increasing density in neighborhoods. “The issue isn’t actually density, it’s concurrency”—things like sidewalks, transit, and parks that should come along with new development, he said.

But two letters he sent last year—one about urban development in general, the other about the Northgate upzone—bely that claim. In the letter about urban development, Miller suggested that the city charge stiff fees for developers who want to build inside the city, to mitigate their impact on the city’s growth management plans. The idea that density is bad for the environment is a pretty standard NIMBY canard: In fact, in-city development actually helps growth management, because it’s far better for the environment than the alternative, suburban sprawl.

In the second letter, Miller wrote that “there is no reason to conclude that rezones are needed” in Northgate, and that allowing more people to live there could “result in density increases that are inconsistent with the city comprehesive plan” and the Northgate neighborhood plan. The city has targeted Northgate as one of its biggest urban centers—if density isn’t appropriate there, it’s hard to see where it would be.

3) Like pretty much everyone running for office, City Council member Richard Conlin marched in yesterday’s Pride Parade. Unlike most candidates, though, he brought gifts—reusable grocery bags filled with peas and cherries (apparently some sort of bawdy joke?) and emblazoned with a cartoon of Conlin (literally, a caricature of himself) on a bike.

4) Morning Fizz hopes Conlin bring extras to tonight’s party to support the Green Bag Campaign, which is pushing for a 20-cent fee on disposable grocery bags, at Western Bridge (3412 Fourth Ave. South) from 5:30 to 7pm.

This morning’s Morning Fizz brought to you by:

goldenticket-v9

  • Kathryn
    One thing to watch regarding the ability to have rational duplex-triplex housing is the new proposed Multifamily Update.

    I have been incredibly frustrated that the Lowrise Duplex Triplex designation (and even the Lowrise 1 designation) was meant to result in buildings nearly the same lot coverage as Single Family homes, but that would serve two or three families.

    We have such housing in Seattle which is now considered 'non-conforming'. With the reduction of family size, maybe we need to get back to the original purpose of the LDT and L1 zones and set lot coverages, size and bulk back to their original specifications. Infill or rezone options for what are areas that were built as duplexes covering no more than 35% of the lot, or what used to be single family homes that would house large families.

    It's the L2 and above that really provide truely dense multifamily living.
  • David Miller
    Sarah --

    Thanks for your vote, I'm honored.

    I talk on the campaign trail about helping seniors age in place. Many of them have told me they could do that easier if they could just figure out how to navigate ADU rules and regulations.

    In-house ADUs are something we should be incentivizing - or at least working to get DPD out of the way. They have a better environmental footprint than detached ADUs if only because they have a better permeable surface profile due to no additional roof space and no additional driveway/pathway space.

    We launched the "Penny for your Thoughts" campaign today, by the way. This is a perfect one for discussion. http://millerforseattle.org/blog/2009/06/28/pen... and the press release: http://www.millerforseattle.org/files/2009-06-2...

    David
  • Guest
    David Miller was also one of the founders of The Liveable Seattle Movement and wrote this.
  • Sarah
    We'd have some already-built density right away if the City of Seattle would lift it's draconian regulations of the ADUs which are in houses. There's no need to build them in the back yard; just license the ones in basements all over Seattle, with appropriate safety restrictions. The trouble is the latter now require unreasonable ceiling heights, parking requirements, window-opening requirements (not required in apartments, why in ADUs), and no one can afford the initial fees and reconstructions costs. Some of us have them operating illegally and we know that all it requires -- yes, in a democratic society -- is for one neighbor to turn us in and we face punitive $$ action from the City until we dismantle the unit.

    We have no idea how many such units exist. Thus we have no idea how many low-cost apartments would be available in Seattle if this restriction were lifted. But, of course, most people who own homes with ADUs aren't developers, so we have no political clout.

    David Miller, I'm already going to vote for you. In return, PLEASE try to do something about the ADU situation.
  • David Miller
    There are two thoughts in density in Seattle. One suggests density is inherently good for Seattle and the environment, the other suggests that only density done well is good for Seattle and the environment. I’m firmly in the latter camp. Polling done during the Parks for All campaign suggests the vast majority of Seattleites are with me in this regard.

    The Northgate letter was written by the Maple Leaf Community Council Executive Board and signed by me as its President in June of 2008 – BEFORE ST-2 passed and brought light rail to Northgate. If anyone would take the time to read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Northgate upzone, you would see the MLCC document in its context.

    Thankfully, the project as described in the original DEIS has been shelved. Over a hundred of the most affordable housing units in the Northgate Urban Center would have been eliminated with no guarantee of equivalent affordable units in the new plan. The DEIS would have left in place the “superblocks” that make pedestrian access to the transit center from the blocks north of Northgate Way impossible. The original DEIS read more like marketing material for a poorly-conceived development than the analysis of the impacts of the project required under SEPA codes.

    A subsequent proposal, based partly on comments received on the original DEIS, is superior. It has a plan to exchange height bonuses for public pathways that eliminate the superblocks. More green, permeable space is created. Guarantees on replacing the existing affordable housing are still on the light side, but I think a smart Council could work with the area developers to come to an agreement.

    Erica is right. If we cannot figure out how to do density right at Northgate, we fail our environmental responsibilities and create a significant mess that will make it harder to do development right in other areas of the city. Fortunately, we have time to get it right. The state-mandated King County Buildable Lands Report tells us our city is ALREADY zoned for 3 times the housing units and 2.7 times the employment job growth we will need to handle our year 2020 commitments under the Growth Management Act.

    The data for Seattle tells me we have done well in preparing for our 2020 growth needs in terms of zoning. Starting next year, Council will look out to 2040 in the rewrite of our comprehensive plan. We may need to make upzones to accommodate the growth (an additional 150,000 in population between 2020 and 2040) Mayor Nickels has signed us up for.

    For me, this means we need to be more creative in allowing larger projects in our urban villages, urban centers, and especially our urban core. It also means we need to join nearly every jurisdiction around Seattle and create an intelligent cottage housing code amendment. Cottage housing, done right, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are excellent ways to densify our single-family zoning – particularly where they run up against more intense zoning. I have specific ideas in mind for test projects for both cottage housing and ADUs, which is why I told Erica I believe we can add more density to single family areas without dramatically altering the quality of life and atmosphere that helps Seattle stay at or near the top of the list for desirable cities.

    Seattle has failed to match infrastructure with growth. The state Growth Management Act requires that infrastructure arrive CONCURRENTLY with increased density. Seattle relies on special property tax levies to handle infrastructure concurrency now, while most of our surrounding jurisdictions rely on development impact fees. I’m in favor of instituting impact fees, but ONLY if we can reduce unnecessary indirect permit process costs for developers.

    If we simply add impact fees, we make it more difficult to create affordable housing. However, if we can remove unnecessary time delays in the permitting process we can capture part of that savings in impact fees and create a win-win situation for all involved.

    For example, let’s say a developer is servicing a $2 million loan for a multi-family project. Shaving 3-5 months off the permit process would save $50,000 in indirect loan servicing costs (even more in consultant and professional services costs). If City Council can force such streamlining, and then creates $25,000 in impact fees isn’t this a win-win situation? The developer saves $25,000 on the project, the city gains $25,000 in infrastructure, and everyone should be happy.

    Not all projects are amenable to such streamlining. Interestingly, projects most amenable to streamlining tend to be otherwise straightforward projects whose only wrinkle happens to be innovative architecture or green building innovations. Such permits can languish for months inside DPD simply because they don’t know what to do with them. I can’t tell you how many green developers I’ve met on the campaign trail who have absolute horror stories to tell about trying to work with DPD. This has nothing to do with neighborhood protests, just disincentives inside the department.

    We can take the impact fee system I describe a step further by implementing a menu of offsetting incentives. A developer would be able to offset the impact fees by including certain socially desirable features in his/her projects. Examples of these would be saving trees that aren’t otherwise required to be saved, implementing green roof technology, using permeable surfaces for driveway/walkways, and/or unit affordability. I’ve talked about this on the campaign trail and the reception has been very positive.

    Land use is tough and packed with danger of unintended consequences. In the late 1980s, we smartly decided to concentrate our Seattle’s growth into urban centers, cores, and villages. I’m 110% on board with this concept. I strongly believe INTRA-urban sprawl is as dangerous to our environment as suburban sprawl. If Seattle grows in an uncontrolled fashion and turns into one big concrete heat sink, we will lose our critical urban watersheds, Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Elliott Bay.

    If, however, we grow Seattle in a way that meets our Growth Management Act population and employment responsibilities simultaneously preserving the most trees, green spaces, and the uniqueness represented by our neighborhoods – then we win. We reduce sprawl in the suburbs, we preserve our urban watersheds, and we create walkable community hubs reachable by transit services, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Oh, and we retain the quality of life that makes Seattle unique among comparable cities.

    That’s the Seattle I want to see. And if I have to get shelled by anonymous political opponents for opposing the idea that density is inherently good regardless of what it does to Seattle’s environment, I’m OK with that.
  • ivan
    @7:

    How silly a statement is that? First of all, what is "progressive" and who is to decide? Second, how do you know what I support and what I don't? Third, put whatever you want to in the Democratic platform. The Legislature makes the laws, and it wipes its collective ass with both parties' platforms.
  • kurisu
    @6 Ivan, one of these days we'll get some progressive growth management and transportation language in the Democratic platform, and your head will explode.
  • ivan
    @ 2:

    FORCING developers to build inside the city? Yeah, right! You and what army? This is the most batshit comment thread yet. Miller is so far and away the class of the field in this race it isn't even funny.

    ZOMG! If we don't "dense up," sprawl will drain our precious bodily fuids, and we'll all DDDDDDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

    Publicola: The new Sound Politics.
  • pl
    Miller truly needs to be outed for what he is: a shrill, anti-environment, anti-growth, NIMBY!

    Check out page 40 of this extensive document, also penned by Miller:
    http://www.mapleleafcommunity.org/images/waldo/...

    He's all about "protecting" low-density, single-family neighborhoods--or at least the one he lives in! Classic NIMBY.
  • Trevor
    Could you show us links to the original Miller letters you write about? Thanks.
  • Kathryn
    Yeah -- think regionally.

    Suburban Sprawl is not a given. What we have are towns and small cities that need to dense up and they need to end 'office park' and 'subdivision' zoning. Burien is setting an example. Redmond needs to get there -- houses on the Microsoft campus anyone?
  • Fnarf
    Wow! "Miller suggested that the city charge stiff fees for developers who want to build inside the city" suggests an astonishing ignorance of what's happening in the region as a whole. Is Miller aware that every unit that doesn't get built in the city amounts to another two in the exurbs, taking out ten times the land in forest or farms? We should be FORCING developers to build inside the city, and we should be charging astronomical fees to build outside of it -- whatever amount is necessary to make the projects uneconomical, I'd say. Miller wants to keep his neighborhoods the way they were in the 1950s, but he doesn't mind if the Puget Sound region looks like LA? We're already halfway there. Miller should jump in his Prius and go drive around Marysville and Arlington, and South Hill Puyallup down to Orting, and start thinking regionally.
  • Guest
    Maple Leaf is actually pretty proud of their land use positions and they highlight them (and David's anti-Northgate rezone letter) on their web site:

    http://www.mapleleafcommunity.org/lutc.html
    http://www.mapleleafcommunity.org/files/land_use/2008_NG_upzone/2008-06-15_MLCC_NGUC-rezone-SEPA-comment.pdf
blog comments powered by Disqus