Two factions in the debate over proposed upzones around the Othello and Beacon Hill light rails stations have written dueling editorials for the Beacon Hill Blog. (As we reported Friday, neighborhood residents have filed identical appeals of the proposed zoning changes, arguing that the environment, “families, neighbors, businesses, students and school families, customers, commuters, visitors, [and] recreation users” will be harmed if the upzones go forward).
In her piece, appellant Frederica Merrell declined to lay out her strategy, arguing that “one important strategy for winning the game is not showing your hand.”
However, in her appeal, Merrell argued that the city’s Department of Planning and Development failed to consider the harmful impacts of increased density (density that, for the record, is intended to make it easier for residents to get around without cars) on the environment, as well as “”families, neighbors, businesses, students and school families, customers, commuters, visitors, [and] recreation users.” The appeal argues that the city has failed to consider the need for new infrastructure, services, and utilities to serve new residents, and that it shouldn’t move forward with increasing density until it provides that infrastructure .
In a response to Merrill’s appeal, Beacon Hill Blog columnist Melissa Jonas noted that lengthy appeals like Merrill’s “[cost] City of Seattle taxpayers money and [take] staff time away from other DPD business while holding up developments that are already in the pipeline. For example, Jonas wrote, El Centro de la Raza has lost time and money waiting to hear whether they’ll be allowed to move forward with plans to develop their property on Beacon Hill because of the appeal. “They cannot begin to move forward on developing their site until there is some indication that zoning issues will be resolved.”
Jonas argues that the issues around the Beacon Hill and Othello sites are zoning matters that have already been resolved, and that any other issues Merrill and others are bringing up now are “red herrings” to thwart development.
Read Merrill’s piece here, and Jonas’ piece here.
Tweet
it's Melissa Jonas, not Melissa Jones.
Thanks for the links, though.
Here's something I researched today. Seattle's Capitol Hill. Capitol refers to a building. Capitol Hill was named with the hope it would be the Capital of Washington. So it should be Capital Hill…not Capitol Hill.
“Capitol” refers to the place where the government is. “Capital” refers to money. Yes, they are different. In theory. “Capitol Hill” is correct.
I don't have a clue why you brought this up here, but I figure the least I can do is set you straight.
Not sure why I'm joining in here, but to dutchoven: “Capital” has many definitions, one of which is a city serving as the seat of government. Washington, DC is our nation's capital. “Capitol” refers to a building or group of buildings where the functions of government are carried out. You meet with your legislators at the Capitol.
This is supposed to be a replay to Sparky, but Disqus isn't letting me do that, so I'm replying to myself.
Yes, “Capital” has many definitions, and I chose the one that worked best for a weak joke. I know the difference between the two words, and while jabailo is getting the definitions correct, he's completely wrong in his conclusion. In Washington DC, Capitol HIll is where the Capitol is, in Seattle it's where they wanted it to be. But that didn't happen because at a meeting in Centralia it was decided that the Capital would be Olympia so that's where the Capitol is.
Just as Capitol Hill has no Capitol, Beacon Hill has no Beacon. Seattle is a misleading city.
I actually do have a relevant comment… which is: why is it that anyone who attempts to question anything about upzoning is automatically seen as anti-density? Maybe there are actually some problems with the way the process has happened in North Beacon Hill (and other neighborhoods). Maybe the plan update isn't as thorough as it needs to be to make sure that new development is done in a way that creates desirable living spaces. I believe one of the criticisms is that the plan gives no reference to key data that is needed to inform a good development plan: estimated population growth in the area, demographics of likely new residents, or what services and amenities they are likely to need. Promoting density means planning for more people, but this NBH plan update is not specific at all about who is coming to NBH: there is no baseline information on people, households, services, or transit, and no predictions about the future. It seems like a wish list resting mainly on statements that just about everyone can agree on: i.e., we want more affordable housing, parks, and small businesses – let's build a lot of capacity and hope it meets the unspecified needs of the future. That's a start, but it doesn't really prepare the area to make sure that development matches the population change that is ostensibly coming, nor does it address the associated tradeoffs (though pro-density advocates often seem to think there are none). Maybe that is not the role of the update. If not, when does concrete planning happen? Developers have a way of moving ahead with projects without taking care of the interests of the community. Government has a way of subsidizing things that aren't really needed (but are wanted by a particularly vocal group) – and sidestepping important needs. I realize this plan is supposed to prevent that, but since no real needs assessment has been made (not the same as a wish list – needs are backed up by data), I'm skeptical of its effectiveness. Maybe someone can get beyond the NIMBY namecalling and secretive strategy and tell us how good development is supposed to happen in the Seattle process, so we can better evaluate the situation. ECB? Dan?
“Government has a way of subsidizing things that aren't really needed (but are wanted by a particularly vocal group) – and sidestepping important needs.”
I'm sure there are other people who feel that the problem is that government has a way of not subsidizing things that really are needed because they are opposed by a particularly vocal group. And you'd both be right.
There are many problems with neighborhood planning in Seattle, but much of it is not the city's fault. For example, did you know there is no way to legally require housing designed for families (as there is in Vancouver BC)? That's why we pretty much only see it from non-profits who are plugged into the community. Developers do have to go through design review but there is no awesome system out there that matches available land, probable neighborhood needs, and developer interest. In other words, there is no massive central planning that “makes” things happen. It's a slow organic process.